Creationists?

[silverdawn]

By 'meaningfully true' I mean looking at the stories of the Bible and taking the meaning behind the stories, rather than the stories themselves. For example instead of believing that Adam and Eve literally ate the forbidden fruit, you would take the meaning behind the story, that we are all sinners.

Thanks for replying!

I look at the literal stories as well as the meaning!

 

[prophecystudent]

Show me a Christian that does not believe in creation and I'll show you a person who either has not properly studied the bible. The bible is meant to be taken literally, except when the bible (itself) indicates that the issue is a "sign" or "wonder". Several such appear in Revelation, for example.

The laws of physics are great, in so far as they go.

For example, show me the law of physics that allows something to spring into existence from nothing.

Believing that something sprang into existence from nothing is necessary to believe in evolution.

The evolutionists have no explanation as to how the universe, earth, people, etc all came into existence. They usually cite the "big Bang" but still cannot answer the question about where the material for the big bang came from.

Fred

 

[ebia]

I do not believe much if anything of what's in Genesis is literal. I do believe God created the universe; I just believe that God appears to have taken the scenic route.

I see no contradiction between science and the Bible on this issue, because I do not believe the creation story in Genesis is meant to be taken literally.

What he said.

 

[ebia]

Show me a Christian that does not believe in creation and I'll show you a person who either has not properly studied the bible.

Clearly untrue.

The bible is meant to be taken literally, except when the bible (itself) indicates that the issue is a "sign" or "wonder".

A completely unfounded assumption.

The laws of physics are great, in so far as they go.

For example, show me the law of physics that allows something to spring into existence from nothing.

Believing that something sprang into existence from nothing is necessary to believe in evolution.

Untrue.

The evolutionists have no explanation as to how the universe, earth, people, etc all came into existence.

Christian evolutionists do - God.

 

[Radagast]

Hi, i just want to know how many of you here are Creationists (by which i include evangelicals, fundamentalists, biblical literlalists and so on) and how many of you are more liberal 'modern' christians (such as people who accept scientific descoveries even if it contradicts the bible).

I'm not sure those categories are opposites.

There are lots of evangelicals, even fundamentalists, that accept scientific discoveries. They would say that if there's an apparent contradiction, then either the science will turn out to be wrong (shown to be wrong by ordinary scientific evidence), or the interpretation of scripture will turn out to be wrong.

 

[Calminian]

Believing that something sprang into existence from nothing is necessary to believe in evolution.

I do know where you're coming from prophecystudend, and generally am in agreement. But in fairness, technically, this isn't true. In fact, the TOE really has nothing to do with how life came to exist from non-life. That's an issue of abiogenesis. Big Bang Cosmology, OTOH, does sort of dead-end and require some kind of push to get it going. There is no natural explanation for what caused this beginning to begin. This is the gap many christians want to place God in. But the logic in this approach is very problematic. Miracles should not be dismissed merely because natural explanations exist. For example, the wine Jesus created would have had a viable natural explanation for its existence also. Yet that explanation would have been wrong. An act of God should not be dismissed merely because a natural explanation can be formulated. There's no need to push God into gaps (I have no doubt you agree with me on this).

The point is, the Bible describes how everything came to be. It was a miraculous act of God. All scientific theories are necessarily naturalistic. They won't allow for miracles. I think this is where old earth christians are confused.

Anyway, I'm in agreement with you for the most part.

 

[Adoniram]

As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe and all that is in it by the mere utterance of his word, as he has told us in His Word. I find it no more difficult to believe that he created it in six days, as he also said in His Word. One concept is no more difficult to adhere to than the other.

When relating science to the Bible, I see no contradictions. What I see is the limitation of science. Where current scientific thought appears to diverge from the Bible, I remember that science consists of observation of natural phenomena and interpretation of what is observed. As science is a human endeavor, it is possible for the mechanics of observation to be flawed, and even more likely for the interpretation to be flawed. In light of these flaws, as new observations are made, new interpretations must be proposed. Some build upon what we already have, some tear down what we have. Science by it's nature is fluid and ever changing. God's Word, however is not. It has remained constant for thousands of years. As long as we realize this, we can adjust to the fact that science has not yet caught up to the Bible and what God has stated in His Word.

 

[Calminian]

As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe and all that is in it by the mere utterance of his word, as he has told us in His Word. I find it no more difficult to believe that he created it in six days, as he also said in His Word. One concept is no more difficult to adhere to than the other.

When relating science to the Bible, I see no contradictions. What I see is the limitation of science. Where current scientific thought appears to diverge from the Bible, I remember that science consists of observation of natural phenomena and interpretation of what is observed. As science is a human endeavor, it is possible for the mechanics of observation to be flawed, and even more likely for the interpretation to be flawed. In light of these flaws, as new observations are made, new interpretations must be proposed. Some build upon what we already have, some tear down what we have. Science by it's nature is fluid and ever changing. God's Word, however is not. It has remained constant for thousands of years. As long as we realize this, we can adjust to the fact that science has not yet caught up to the Bible and what God has stated in His Word.

Very well said. There's also the miracle factor. Why christians allow science to undermine a straight forward reading of scripture is beyond me.

 

[ebia]

Very well said. There's also the miracle factor. Why christians allow science to undermine a straight forward reading of scripture is beyond me.

Because it's not the "straignt forward reading of scripture (TM)" that you claim it to be; it's a product of a post-enlightenment thinking that would be completely alien to those who wrote the text in the first place.

 

[Stinker]

Genesis 2:19-20 (New International Version)


19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
------------------------------------------------------

If one thinks that the first few chapters of Genesis are to be understood as literal, I wonder if they understand that they must maintain that the T-Rex, Raptor, etc., were also named by Adam then.

 

[Calminian]

Because it's not the "straignt forward reading of scripture (TM)" that you claim it to be; it's a product of a post-enlightenment thinking that would be completely alien to those who wrote the text in the first place.

I'm afraid you're a victim of propaganda, ebia. I know there's some material out there claiming YEC is a new invention. It's been thoroughly discredited. Even allegory prone Augustine, the favorite ECF for TEs to quote, was a staunch young earther and believed Genesis to be historical narrative.

 

[Calminian]

Genesis 2:19-20 (New International Version)


19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
------------------------------------------------------

If one thinks that the first few chapters of Genesis are to be understood as literal, I wonder if they understand that they must maintain that the T-Rex, Raptor, etc., were also named by Adam then.

Actually it was only the beasts "of the field" that were named. And the NIV is actually an excellent choice of translations in that it starts the sentence with "now" instead of "and" showing that this was referring to the initial creation of animals (Gen. 1) and was not recording the events chronologically. Nice try though. This is more clear in the Hebrew and many word for word translations have trouble picking nuances like this up. But the NIV, being more of a thought for thought version, renders it quite accurately.

 

[ebia]

I'm afraid you're a victim of propaganda, ebia. I know there's some material out there claiming YEC is a new invention. It's been thoroughly discredited. Even allegory prone Augustine, the favorite ECF for TEs to quote, was a staunch young earther and believed Genesis to be historical narrative.

I'm not sure how one could be certain exactly how Augustine (or anyone else) understood Genesis. Such arguments usually take the form of "so and so said such and such, and that's consistant with what I believe, therefore they believed the same as me", ignoring the fact that the quote is also consistant with a range of other beliefs. What we can be certain of is that Augustine did not read it in a post-enlightenment way. Of course, Augustine's understanding is also a product of his time and context. Ancient people's did not have genre resembling modern history, so to treat Genesis as such is clearly not a "plain reading of the text".

But this is all off topic - the OP asked what people believed, it didn't ask for a debate so I better stop.

 

[Adoniram]

I think it can be agree upon by most of us that Jesus was present at the creation, being the fact that he is the Son of God. And since the Jews of Jesus time on earth held the books of Moses in great reverence and believed them to be the literal words of God, it must be assumed that they believed in the literal interpretation of the creation account and taught the same in their Temple and synagogues. So the question arises: Why did Jesus, who corrected and amended more than a few of the common interpretations of their Scriptures, not see fit to "set the record straight" if a literal interpretation of the creation account was incorrect? If Jesus had no problem with a literal interpretation of the creation account, why should we? That would seem a little presumptuous would it not?

 

[Calminian]

I'm not sure how one could be certain exactly how Augustine (or anyone else) understood Genesis.

Because there are numerous writings to look through. He specifically stated he believe the earth was less than 10,000 years old.

Such arguments usually take the form of "so and so said such and such, and that's consistent with what I believe, therefore they believed the same as me",

Which is what you attempted to do. You are claiming that a straight forward reading of Genesis is a recent idea. This is false.

ignoring the fact that the quote is also consistent with a range of other beliefs. What we can be certain of is that Augustine did not read it in a post-enlightenment way.

Of course he did, if by that you mean he read Genesis as historical narrative. That was your exact argument.

Of course, Augustine's understanding is also a product of his time and context.

Actually Augustine stood against the philosophical long age views of his time. This is another misnomer floating around out there. He specifically spoke against long age ideas and against naturalism. He believed creation to be an instantaneous miracle.

Ancient people's did not have genre resembling modern history, so to treat Genesis as such is clearly not a "plain reading of the text".

I have no idea what this means. This idea that Gen. 1-11 is all mythical is a recent creation. There's no one in history you can point to to support this.

But this is all off topic - the OP asked what people believed, it didn't ask for a debate so I better stop.

Fair enough. I just wanted to correct you on the notion that YEC is somehow a new idea. You can certainly argue it's wrong, but not that it's new.

 

[ebia]

I think it can be agree upon by most of us that Jesus was present at the creation,

Not just present, but is the Word through which creation happens.

And since the Jews of Jesus time on earth held the books of Moses in great reverence

Clearly true.

and believed them to be the literal words of God,

not clearly true.

it must be assumed that they believed in the literal interpretation of the creation account

Sorry - this doesn't follow at all. You are assuming that they treated Genesis is a literal-historical account, but that is highly unlikely. You are putting back your cultural assumptions upon them. The people of Jesus' time and before would be quite at home with mythology being as true (if not truer) than fact.

and taught the same in their Temple and synagogues. So the question arises: Why did Jesus, who corrected and amended more than a few of the common interpretations of their Scriptures, not see fit to "set the record straight" if a literal interpretation of the creation account was incorrect?

See above, but also because he came to teach us about God and our relationship to him, not to teach history and science.

If Jesus had no problem with a literal interpretation of the creation account,

A big IF - there is no evidence that the people of his time would even have understood what you meant by 'a literal interpretation of the creation account'.

But I have no problem with a literal interpretation of Genesis if that's what you want to hold to. What I have a problem with is any claim that it's the only acceptable understanding.

 

[Calminian]

hA big IF - there is no evidence that the people of his time would even have understood what you meant by 'a literal interpretation of the creation account'.

Hmmm. This is starting to make sense. In fact I see no evidence you are speaking literally. It's just not there. Can someone please show me the evidence if I'm wrong? It's very unlikely you are a TE. Only a blind literalist would believe something so narrow minded.

 

[ebia]

Hmmm. This is starting to make sense. In fact I see no evidence you are speaking literally. It's just not there. Can someone please show me the evidence if I'm wrong? It's very unlikely you are a TE. Only a blind literalist would believe something so narrow minded.

So you can't tell the difference in genre between Genesis and my posts on this thread? That would explain a lot.

 

[Radagast]

I'm not sure how one could be certain exactly how Augustine (or anyone else) understood Genesis.

Well, he did write a book about it.

I wouldn't say it takes a standard YEC line, though -- Augustine tends to allegory. In City of God he says:

We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it. For either it was some material light, whether proceeding from the upper parts of the world, far removed from our sight, or from the spot where the sun was afterwards kindled; or under the name of light the holy city was signified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits, the city of which the apostle says, “Jerusalem which is above is our eternal mother in heaven;”{Gal. iv. 26.} and in another place, “For ye are all the children of the light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of darkness.”{ 1 Thess. v. 5.} Yet in some respects we may appropriately speak of a morning and evening of this day also. For the knowledge of the creature is, in comparison of the knowledge of the Creator, but a twilight; and so it dawns and breaks into morning when the creature is drawn to the praise and love of the Creator; and night never falls when the Creator is not forsaken through love of the creature. In fine, Scripture, when it would recount those days in order, never mentions the word night. It never says, “Night was,” but “The evening and the morning were the first day.” So of the second and the rest. And, indeed, the knowledge of created things contemplated by themselves is, so to speak, more colorless than when they are seen in the wisdom of God, as in the art by which they were made. Therefore evening is a more suitable figure than night; and yet, as I said, morning returns when the creature returns to the praise and love of the Creator. When it does so in the knowledge of itself, that is the first day; when in the knowledge of the firmament, which is the name given to the sky between the waters above and those beneath, that is the second day; when in the knowledge of the earth, and the sea, and all things that grow out of the earth, that is the third day; when in the knowledge of the greater and less luminaries, and all the stars, that is the fourth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that swim in the waters and that fly in the air, that is the fifth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that live on the earth, and of man himself, that is the sixth day.

 

[Calminian]

Well, he did write a book about it.

I wouldn't say it takes a standard YEC line, though -- Augustine tends to allegory. In City of God he says:

He actually did take the standard young earth view. He just didn't take the standard days of creation view. He thought them to be allegory and believed the creation was instantaneous. He also took Genesis to be a historical narrative account and the flood to be literal. Yet the way he's cited you'd think he was the first theistic evolutionist. He was nowhere close to that view. Nor were any other ECF's. He rejected the long-age ideas of his day. The poor guy would spin in his grave if he knew what he was being used to support.