Creationists?

[Adoniram]

Quote:
and believed them to be the literal words of God,

not clearly true.

I might give you this one, they may have considered them only to be the law of Moses.


Quote:
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.

My cultural assumptions? No. They clearly believed in the literal creation account, the literal existence of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood, Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, Joseph, Moses and the burning bush, the miracles of the Exodus. These were the foundation of their nation, their heritage. To think that the Jews of Jesus time did not believe that Genesis was a literal account of their history, and the history of the world, is to deny the importance they placed on their heritage and lineage. And that is clearly evident in the feasts they held so dear, and also from the references to the creation, and the record of the "begats" we find throughout the OT.


Quote:
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.

Yes, he did come to teach us about God and our relationship to God, but he did so much more. He actually redefined our relationship to God. And he did indeed teach about history, in his references to Moses and other OT saints, and also in his prophesies concerning future history. Yet you are saying that Jesus would be so lax as to let such a glaring misinterpretation stand, if it were indeed a misinterpretation. Hardly!


Quote:
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'.

Quite true. They weren't schooled in the particulars of literary devices. They might have been familiar with parables or even what we call allegory, but neither of those would apply to the Genesis account. They would have simply read the account and understood that to be the way it happened without even considering any other possibilities.

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.

I'm so happy you will grant me that. Acceptable understandings? Yes, well, everybody has one. However, ultimately, only one is true. And I am willing to give God the benefit of the doubt that he inspired Moses to write the record exactly as it happened.

 

[ebia]

My cultural assumptions? No. They clearly believed in the literal creation account, the literal existence of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood, Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, Joseph, Moses and the burning bush, the miracles of the Exodus. These were the foundation of their nation, their heritage. To think that the Jews of Jesus time did not believe that Genesis was a literal account of their history, and the history of the world, is to deny the importance they placed on their heritage and lineage.

Not at all. Ancient people trace their ancestory back to mythological people all the time. Only in a modern mindset does that become a problem.

And that is clearly evident in the feasts they held so dear, and also from the references to the creation, and the record of the "begats" we find throughout the OT.

On the contrary - the "begats" and the rest of it look exactly like a real people now tracing their ancestry back to legendary and mythological figures.

Yes, he did come to teach us about God and our relationship to God, but he did so much more. He actually redefined our relationship to God. And he did indeed teach about history, in his references to Moses and other OT saints, and also in his prophesies concerning future history.

Only in the context of putting right our relationship to God right. Not for academic interest.

Yet you are saying that Jesus would be so lax as to let such a glaring misinterpretation stand, if it were indeed a misinterpretation. Hardly!

It's not a glaring misinterpretation. It's a perfectly valid interpretation. It's not a modern literalist interpretation.
"Myth is true" is not wrong unless you have a modern, incorrectly limited, understanding of what truth is.

Quite true. They weren't schooled in the particulars of literary devices. They might have been familiar with parables or even what we call allegory, but neither of those would apply to the Genesis account. They would have simply read the account and understood that to be the way it happened without even considering any other possibilities.

This is simply wrong. The idea that you record history as facts about what happened is not an ancient genre. Myth, liturgy, saga and legends are. Telling your truths through stories about your 'past' is part of every ancient culture.

I'm so happy you will grant me that. Acceptable understandings? Yes, well, everybody has one. However, ultimately, only one is true. And I am willing to give God the benefit of the doubt that he inspired Moses to write the record exactly as it happened.

And I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he inspired whoever wrote Genesis to tell us about the relationship between him and creation through the literary genres of the time and context in which it was written, not a literary genre that wouldn't even be invented for a few thousand years. Genesis was written for all time - not specifically for a modern age that is obsesed with fact and has forgotten that truth takes many forms.

 

[salida]

jmoth...

Any scientific discovery that "contradicts the Bible" is called junk science. I'm a scientist and a Bible literalist. Because of the Bibles overwhelming facts and evidence its the most true book in the world. Don't take my view on it - if you do the research you will find the same answer.

Yes, I'm a creationist - because the facts point to it. There are many great book outs there called Gods Fingerprints, The Case for a Creator and many more. The author for Case for A Creator - was an athiest but now he is a christian. There are many cases like this concerning authors.

 

[tel0004]

Im a young earth creationist. I believe the earth is approximatly 6000 years old. 4004 BC is a common date given, and I think thats probably accurate to within a few hundred years.

 

[Letalis]

I just want to remind everyone that non-Christians are not allowed to answer questions in this forum. If you are a non-Christian and you have a question, you are encouraged to start your own thread.

I would also like to say this isn't a debate forum, so I'd appreciate no more debating.

God bless,
Letalis

​

 

[jmothecat]

Im a young earth creationist. I believe the earth is approximatly 6000 years old. 4004 BC is a common date given, and I think thats probably accurate to within a few hundred years.

Im not arguing with you, i just want to know why you believe that? I mean doesnt things as simple as dendochronology (counting tree rings) prove that the earth is at least 8000 years? And other things like fossils, carbon dating, even common sence prove that the earth is millions of years old?

 

[Rafael]

Im not arguing with you, i just want to know why you believe that? I mean doesnt things as simple as dendochronology (counting tree rings) prove that the earth is at least 8000 years? And other things like fossils, carbon dating, even common sence prove that the earth is millions of years old?

8000? Why I thought it was supposed to be zillions of years old. That's only 1000 off of the seven day schedule of a 1000 years for each day and some trees grow more than one cycle per year...
Another thing is the very first verse of the Bible leaves an open door as far as time goes. Timelessness and eternity are strange when you try to apply a timeline to eternity where only the "now" happens. Perhaps time is only subject to the will of God and His power...? Just like He says....

 

[Letalis]

This thread has run its course.

​