Foundation

[shernren]

I've heard two different schools of thought (and there may be more) about the relationship between Genesis and the totality of the Christian faith, and I'm curious as to why you see things the way you do.

One camps says that if we can't believe the opening pages of the Bible, then we can't believe anything else in the Bible, especially Jesus' claims and his Resurrection. But if we can demonstrate that Genesis is reliable then we can at least begin to trust the rest of Scripture and have more faith that Jesus is who He says He is and that what's recorded about his works and His resurrection can be shown to be reliable.

The other camp says that if we don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then what's written in Genesis doesn't really matter. But if Jesus did rise from the dead, then we can take a look at Genesis and begin to see what it means and why/how it applies to our lives.

What is your approach to this, and why? I fall into the latter camp, because if you prove creation, then you've given credence to Judaism and Islam just as much as to Christianity. But if you prove the resurrection, then you have a reason to find a reason in Genesis.

Firstly, your argument for falling into the latter camp is somewhat fallacious. If Genesis is foundational to Christianity, then the fact that it is also foundational to Judaism and (in a related form) to Islam is surely besides the point.

Similarly, we know that Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are foundational to special relativity, aether theory, and Barry Setterfield's c-decay idea. But now the fact that Maxwell's equations can be used to prop up wrong theories doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, vital in propping up the right theory.

Of course (and this is my second point) the correct answer to the first camp is not to say Genesis doesn't matter. Genesis does matter. If Genesis didn't matter to me, I wouldn't be a TE; I would be an atheist. And in fact Genesis properly understood is foundational to a Christian worldview. But therein lies the rub: it has to be properly understood.

Suppose a friend and I are listening to Martin Luther King's famous speech, and when he says "I have a dream", my friend turns to me and says, "He must have had a really good sleep the previous night!"

I reply: "No, not that kind of dream! He means figuratively that he is having an aspiration for Ameri - "
"What! But Martin Luther King clearly means a literal dream! Look, he is talking about white children and black children, exactly the kind of thing you would see in a dream!"
"Well, he sure does sound like he's describing a literal dream, but he need not be doing so. He may just be making a great speech."
"Oh, that's terrible! You don't believe Martin Luther King! If you don't think his first sentence is reliable, then you must hate the rest of it!"
"I think you're jumping to conclu - "
"You're a white supremacist! You still wish our schools and buses were segregated! You hate blacks! You must be a KKK member!"
​

And so on. The problem isn't that I don't believe that Martin Luther King, in fact, has a dream. The problem is that I think he means a particular thing when he says that. And I think his meaning has little to do with the literal kind of dream that we experience at night.

But just because I don't believe a particular interpretation of "I have a dream" doesn't mean I don't believe "I have a dream". And similarly, just because I don't believe a particular (wooden, literalistic, unimaginative) interpretation of Genesis doesn't mean I don't believe Genesis. I just think it means something different from what the YECs think it means.

 

[vossler]

Welcome back Vossler

Thanks, although I don't expect a long stay.

That is what happens of Creationists stay away from the forum.

To be honest getting away from here was one of the best things I've done. I used to waste so much time with addressing people and situations to absolutely no avail, now I spend far more productive time talking to people in person where I can have a more positive interaction.

You know in all our discussions you have never given us a coherent biblical basis for that signature of yours. The only basis for creationism is a literal interpretation of Genesis yet you have never come up with a biblical reason we have to automatically assume it is literal in a bible full of parable, poetry and metaphor.

It's interesting that this still is an issue for you. It is only TEs like yourself that have issue with this. I think it is because the statement helps keep our interpretation process simple as opposed to the very complex theological arguments TEs present in order to back up their beliefs.

As for a biblical basis for my signature. 1 Peter 1:24-25 states:

All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.
​

Here we can see Peter provide an analogy how things come and go yet the word of the Lord remains forever. This argument can be applied to the Creation vs. Evolution debate. Evolution relies on man to interpret creation events instead of anchoring our interpretation on what the Word of God says. Since the beginning Christians have held fast to the same interpretation of the creation account while man continues to theorize his own interpretation. How do the Creationists maintain a steady and uncompromising interpretation? They do so because the plain sense of Scripture doesn't change, whereas man's interpretation constantly changes.

You don't have issues with the evidence because you ignore it all? We have been discussing the way creationism is anti-science, this is a pretty good illustration.

That's interesting because to me evolution is anti-science.

Anyway, it is good to see you here Vossler I have missed you.

Thank you, you are one of the few TEs with whom I can say the same.

 

[Assyrian]

Thanks, although I don't expect a long stay.

It's good to see you when you do drop by

To be honest getting away from here was one of the best things I've done. I used to waste so much time with addressing people and situations to absolutely no avail, now I spend far more productive time talking to people in person where I can have a more positive interaction.

Sounds like you could do with some of us here keeping an eye on you

It's interesting that this still is an issue for you. It is only TEs like yourself that have issue with this. I think it is because the statement helps keep our interpretation process simple as opposed to the very complex theological arguments TEs present in order to back up their beliefs.

Not sure it even keeps interpretation simple, given the convolutions literalists have to go to to sort deal with the contradictions their interpretation thrown up, but even if it was simple, that is no advantage when scripture loves to speak in metaphor and symbol. the simple literal interpretation that misses the point, well, misses the point. Ask Nicodemus.

As for a biblical basis for my signature. 1 Peter 1:24-25 states:

All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.
​

Here we can see Peter provide an analogy how things come and go yet the word of the Lord remains forever.

quoting a metaphor from the OT hardly gives us a basis for taking everything as literally as we can take it. Jesus' parables have remained too. And they have remained parables (see what I did there )

This argument can be applied to the Creation vs. Evolution debate. Evolution relies on man to interpret creation events instead of anchoring our interpretation on what the Word of God says. Since the beginning Christians have held fast to the same interpretation of the creation account while man continues to theorize his own interpretation.

Come on Vossler, you must know that isn't true, you know there were Church fathers who interpreted Genesis figuratively.

How do the Creationists maintain a steady and uncompromising interpretation? They do so because the plain sense of Scripture doesn't change, whereas man's interpretation constantly changes.

Unfortunately that simply puts you in the same category as geocentrists who cling stalwartly to the pre-Copernican interpretations. The only difference between creationism and geocentrism is everyone accepted the literal interpretation of the geocentic passages before Copernicus whereas we have had different interpretation of Genesis.

That's interesting because to me evolution is anti-science.

Spoken as a true anti-science-ist

Thank you, you are one of the few TEs with whom I can say the same.

for all our differences over Genesis, it is good to chew over scripture with fellow believers

 

[Mallon]

Come on Vossler, you must know that isn't true, you know there were Church fathers who interpreted Genesis figuratively.

It's true:
How Did the Church Interpret the Days of Creation before Darwin? – Justin Taylor

 

[vossler]

Not sure it even keeps interpretation simple, given the convolutions literalists have to go to to sort deal with the contradictions their interpretation thrown up, but even if it was simple, that is no advantage when scripture loves to speak in metaphor and symbol. the simple literal interpretation that misses the point, well, misses the point. Ask Nicodemus.

Of course Scripture speaks in metaphors and symbolism. Creationists have never denied that so let's not throw out any red-herrings into this discussion.

Come on Vossler, you must know that isn't true, you know there were Church fathers who interpreted Genesis figuratively.

It's true:
How Did the Church Interpret the Days of Creation before Darwin? – Justin Taylor

No one is denying that there were church leaders whose interpretation of Genesis strayed from the historical into various other explanations. The same could be said on a vast number of other topics. What I am saying is that, for the majority of believers, since the beginning of time the historicity of Genesis has never been questioned. As the Word of God never changes neither does its historical significance when teaching about the creation account. The vast majority of believers believe Genesis in the same way today as they did yesterday. There's something very comforting in the knowledge that the Word of God never changes and it isn't an accident that God ordained it that way.

Unfortunately that simply puts you in the same category as geocentrists who cling stalwartly to the pre-Copernican interpretations. The only difference between creationism and geocentrism is everyone accepted the literal interpretation of the geocentic passages before Copernicus whereas we have had different interpretation of Genesis.

Maybe that's how you see it but that point of view couldn't be farther from truth.

Spoken as a true anti-science-ist

It's easy to throw out an ad hominem in an attempt to invalidate my statement.

for all our differences over Genesis, it is good to chew over scripture with fellow believers

Especially when Scripture itself is the basis of the argument instead of man made ideas.

 

[Papias]

Vossler wrote:

No one is denying that there were church leaders whose interpretation of Genesis strayed from the historical into various other explanations. The same could be said on a vast number of other topics. What I am saying is that, for the majority of believers, since the beginning of time the historicity of Genesis has never been questioned.

Wow, I've always wished I too could get poll data from 1,500 years ago!! Where was that found? Hidden down under Rome, in the honeycombs?

Papias

P.S. It's also interesting to hear that Moses didn't write genesis, but that it was written immediately after creation. By Abel?

 

[Assyrian]

Of course Scripture speaks in metaphors and symbolism. Creationists have never denied that so let's not throw out any red-herrings into this discussion.

Well you do get the odd creationist insisting even the parables literally happened, but that wasn't my point here. was saying that when scripture does use metaphor and symbols, that however literal an interpretation of a metaphorical passage may seem, the simplicity is no advantage when you miss the meaning of the passage. The problem creationists have even if they recognise how God loves to speak in metaphors parables, is their insistence that it couldn't possibly be how God was speaking in Genesis.

No one is denying that there were church leaders whose interpretation of Genesis strayed from the historical into various other explanations.

Well you did say "Since the beginning Christians have held fast to the same interpretation of the creation account" but its good to see you were just using a bit of hyperbole.

The same could be said on a vast number of other topics. What I am saying is that, for the majority of believers, since the beginning of time the historicity of Genesis has never been questioned.

As papias has pointed out, we don't actually know what the vast majority of ordinary illiterate believers who never had the opportunity to study the bible themselves thought, we do know about the leading scripture scholars from Augustine to Aquinas who interpreted the creation account figuratively.

As the Word of God never changes neither does its historical significance when teaching about the creation account. The vast majority of believers believe Genesis in the same way today as they did yesterday. There's something very comforting in the knowledge that the Word of God never changes and it isn't an accident that God ordained it that way.

Not sure scripture interpretation is decided by popular vote, but if it was then geocentrism and the eucharist being Jesus' literal meat would have been passed uncontested, unanimously held by all believers until the time of the Reformation. The difference with Genesis is that we did have different interpretations throughout church history. We don't decide the truth by a popularity contest, but if scientific evidence turns out to show that one of the was simply wrong, then we really don't have an excuse for holding onto it when there has always been another way to understand the passage.

Maybe that's how you see it but that point of view couldn't be farther from truth.

The only difference is that geocentrists have the excuse that there really was no alternative interpretation before science came along and showed their understanding was wrong. They really could say, 'Since the beginning Christians have held fast to the same interpretation of the geocentric passages.'

It's easy to throw out an ad hominem in an attempt to invalidate my statement.

Actually your statement that "to me evolution is anti-science" looked like a pretty good illustration of my previous point "the way creationism is anti-science". Is that an ad hom?

Especially when Scripture itself is the basis of the argument instead of man made ideas.
______________________________________________________________________________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take
every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."

Speaking of man made ideas...

 

[vossler]

Well you do get the odd creationist insisting even the parables literally happened, but that wasn't my point here. was saying that when scripture does use metaphor and symbols, that however literal an interpretation of a metaphorical passage may seem, the simplicity is no advantage when you miss the meaning of the passage. The problem creationists have even if they recognise how God loves to speak in metaphors parables, is their insistence that it couldn't possibly be how God was speaking in Genesis.

Of course simplicity isn't the sole reason for a literal interpretation, it always, always comes down to context.

Well you did say "Since the beginning Christians have held fast to the same interpretation of the creation account" but its good to see you were just using a bit of hyperbole.

No hyperbole, Christians have, since the beginning, held to six days.

As papias has pointed out, we don't actually know what the vast majority of ordinary illiterate believers who never had the opportunity to study the bible themselves thought, we do know about the leading scripture scholars from Augustine to Aquinas who interpreted the creation account figuratively.

Let's be clear about one thing concerning Augustine and Aquinas, neither of them believed in anything even coming close to common ancestry. I've seen evidence that Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously and Aquinas believed in a world wide flood. Most, if not all, of their writings do not have anything I object to. Certainly their views on creation are far more palatable and supportive of the Scriptures than any TE view.

We don't decide the truth by a popularity contest, but if scientific evidence turns out to show that one of the was simply wrong, then we really don't have an excuse for holding onto it when there has always been another way to understand the passage.

I could go along with this supposition if it were based on truth, however I have yet to see any compelling scientific evidence to support evolution.

The only difference is that geocentrists have the excuse that there really was no alternative interpretation before science came along and showed their understanding was wrong. They really could say, 'Since the beginning Christians have held fast to the same interpretation of the geocentric passages.'

The fascinating thing about all the geocentrist arguments is that they are meaningless. It makes no difference to me or anyone whether or not we physically live in a world that revolves around the sun or vice-versa. Either way my life is the same so why is it held up by you and others to have spiritual significance?

Speaking of man made ideas...

I don't recall my signature being the basis of any argument.

 

[Assyrian]

Of course simplicity isn't the sole reason for a literal interpretation, it always, always comes down to context.

Context like two mutually contradictory sequences of creation? a talking snake that wasn't a snake? a fruit tree that can give everlasting life which only Jesus can give? a character named 'Man'? a six day creation of the world that was done in a day? a day that lasted 930 years? (the day Adam ate from tree of knowledge and surely died). There is a awful lot on the context that tell us these creation stories are not meant literally.

No hyperbole, Christians have, since the beginning, held to six days

Some Christian have, others have not, including the leading scripture scholars for over a thousand years. "Since the beginning Christians have held fast to the same interpretation of the creation account" sure sounded like you are claiming all Christians held the view. I am not even sure 'held fast' is a good description when a literal interpretation simply wasn't an issue. Creationists today feel they are under pressure from the world and are fighting to remain faithful to the Word of God, whereas the Christians in the past held one view or the other based on how they read the text, or saw that there were different ways to interpret the text and that they didn't know which was right.

Let's be clear about one thing concerning Augustine and Aquinas, neither of them believed in anything even coming close to common ancestry. I've seen evidence that Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously and Aquinas believed in a world wide flood. Most, if not all, of their writings do not have anything I object to. Certainly their views on creation are far more palatable and supportive of the Scriptures than any TE view.

You mean supportive of young earth creationism? Of course, they certainly believed the earth was young, and while I haven't looked into their view of the flood global I am happy to take your word for it. But there were four things in their approach to Genesis that are simply toxic to young earth creationism. Firstly they interpreted the Genesis days figuratively, whereas YEC is totally dependent on insisting the days have to be literal. Then you have their view of scripture that it is open to different possible interpretations, YECs have to insist that their literal interpretation is the only way to interpret Genesis. Once you realise Genesis is open to different interpretations there is simply no reason to hold to an interpretation that has been shown to be wrong. Then you have their insistence that if science shows an interpretation is wrong, then that never was what scripture meant. And lastly, that holding to a discredited interpretation results in bringing Christianity and the bible into disrepute.

I could go along with this supposition if it were based on truth, however I have yet to see any compelling scientific evidence to support evolution.

I think you have to ask yourself here how open you actually are to the evidence. That is a question you have to answer for yourself. But the only people I have come across who feel that way are people whose real reason to reject evolution is their interpretation of the bible or koran. On the other hand you will find Christians spanning the range from conservative, evangelical, high church and liberal, as well as humanists, agnostics, atheists, Hindus and Muslims who think there is very strong evidence for an ancient earth and evolution.

The fascinating thing about all the geocentrist arguments is that they are meaningless. It makes no difference to me or anyone whether or not we physically live in a world that revolves around the sun or vice-versa. Either way my life is the same so why is it held up by you and others to have spiritual significance?

It may not make a difference to you now, but at the time heliocentrism questioned the very authority and inspiration of scripture. It makes a difference because the church had to abandon the literal interpretation of scriptures held without question throughout church history and find new ways to interpret those passages because science told them their old literal interpretation was wrong. The very thing Creationist today tell us we must not do.

I don't recall my signature being the basis of any argument.

You have forgotten all the times I showed you it was a man made rule that had no basis in scripture?

 

[vossler]

Context like two mutually contradictory sequences of creation? a talking snake that wasn't a snake? a fruit tree that can give everlasting life which only Jesus can give? a character named 'Man'? a six day creation of the world that was done in a day? a day that lasted 930 years? (the day Adam ate from tree of knowledge and surely died). There is a awful lot on the context that tell us these creation stories are not meant literally.

Ahh...yes after reading this many of the past discussions came back to me and it wasn't a pretty sight. Thank goodness I didn't accept the invitation.

Some Christian have, others have not, including the leading scripture scholars for over a thousand years. "Since the beginning Christians have held fast to the same interpretation of the creation account" sure sounded like you are claiming all Christians held the view. I am not even sure 'held fast' is a good description when a literal interpretation simply wasn't an issue.

You are right, I was painting with too broad a brush, I should know better. Sadly I can't even say all people who claim to be Christians believe He, Jesus, was the Son of God.

Creationists today feel they are under pressure from the world and are fighting to remain faithful to the Word of God, whereas the Christians in the past held one view or the other based on how they read the text, or saw that there were different ways to interpret the text and that they didn't know which was right.

Again I think you are right here, except I would replace the word "world" with TEs. If the TE didn't exist I probably wouldn't be inclined to discuss creationism much.

You mean supportive of young earth creationism? Of course, they certainly believed the earth was young, and while I haven't looked into their view of the flood global I am happy to take your word for it. But there were four things in their approach to Genesis that are simply toxic to young earth creationism. Firstly they interpreted the Genesis days figuratively, whereas YEC is totally dependent on insisting the days have to be literal. Then you have their view of scripture that it is open to different possible interpretations, YECs have to insist that their literal interpretation is the only way to interpret Genesis. Once you realise Genesis is open to different interpretations there is simply no reason to hold to an interpretation that has been shown to be wrong. Then you have their insistence that if science shows an interpretation is wrong, then that never was what scripture meant. And lastly, that holding to a discredited interpretation results in bringing Christianity and the bible into disrepute.

It is interesting that you find their approach to Genesis toxic to YECs. I'm not a kool-aid drinking YEC so maybe I'm not aware of the toxicity of their views. I find their views, as well as others, to be thought provoking and for the most part well supported. I have no real issues with Christians who believe in the things you describe, I really only have an issue with common descent. It is here that one finds absolutely no biblical support at all.

I think you have to ask yourself here how open you actually are to the evidence. That is a question you have to answer for yourself. But the only people I have come across who feel that way are people whose real reason to reject evolution is their interpretation of the bible or koran. On the other hand you will find Christians spanning the range from conservative, evangelical, high church and liberal, as well as humanists, agnostics, atheists, Hindus and Muslims who think there is very strong evidence for an ancient earth and evolution.

Good point! At one time I by default believed, in my mind, that common ancestry was true. It was taught in school and of course everything you learn in school is right, right? However after becoming an adult and investigating the facts, or should I say the lack thereof, I found the idea rather wanting. To be honest, I read the Bible and it spoke to my spirit and convicted me of the plain truth of its words. Then I looked deeper and found nothing to dissuade me from that position. To be even more honest, initially it was part of the reason for coming to CF, more specifically OT. I needed to know if other Christians could be effective in shooting holes in Creationism, obviously I found they couldn't.

It may not make a difference to you now, but at the time heliocentrism questioned the very authority and inspiration of scripture. It makes a difference because the church had to abandon the literal interpretation of scriptures held without question throughout church history and find new ways to interpret those passages because science told them their old literal interpretation was wrong. The very thing Creationist today tell us we must not do.

Apples and oranges to me. One (heliocentrism) has no real spiritual significance the other, creationism, does!

You have forgotten all the times I showed you it was a man made rule that had no basis in scripture?

Well if that's the case every time I give my opinion or espouse something it is a man made idea. So yes, I confess to giving a lot of man made ideas.

 

[Jazer]

I understand that some approach things differently. I'm just curious as to why.

Thanks in advance for your input and insight.

Some people are taught by man and some people are taught by God. The Holy Spirit will guide us and lead us into all truth. The same Holy Spirit that convicts us of our sin. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:

 

[Jazer]

Genesis properly understood is foundational to a Christian worldview. But therein lies the rub: it has to be properly understood.

Science only claims to be able to understand 4% of all there is to know and understand. Fifty years ago they said 3%. So we are making progress. But our understanding of Genesis is limited by our understanding of science. As we learn and gain more knowledge and understanding, then we better understand what God is wanting to teach us in the first chapter of the Bible. But for now our ability to understand the world we live in, is limited to 4% according to science.

 

[shernren]

Science only claims to be able to understand 4% of all there is to know and understand. Fifty years ago they said 3%. So we are making progress. But our understanding of Genesis is limited by our understanding of science. As we learn and gain more knowledge and understanding, then we better understand what God is wanting to teach us in the first chapter of the Bible. But for now our ability to understand the world we live in, is limited to 4% according to science.

Who did the counting?

 

[Assyrian]

Ahh...yes after reading this many of the past discussions came back to me and it wasn't a pretty sight. Thank goodness I didn't accept the invitation.

Ah yes, the ghost of Christmas Past...

You are right, I was painting with too broad a brush, I should know better...

That would have been good reply if you left it there.

Sadly I can't even say all people who claim to be Christians believe He, Jesus, was the Son of God.

Unfortunately you switch from your broad brush to a tar brush

Again I think you are right here, except I would replace the word "world" with TEs. If the TE didn't exist I probably wouldn't be inclined to discuss creationism much.

That is understandable, you prefer discussing scripture rather than creation science. It is the creationists who are into creation science who are more likely to discuss the subject with atheist and agnostics, if you are going to discuss Genesis then your main conversation with be with TEs.

It is interesting that you find their approach to Genesis toxic to YECs. I'm not a kool-aid drinking YEC so maybe I'm not aware of the toxicity of their views. I find their views, as well as others, to be thought provoking and for the most part well supported. I have no real issues with Christians who believe in the things you describe, I really only have an issue with common descent. It is here that one finds absolutely no biblical support at all.

Yet very little in the bible to contradict it, and only if you think it is literal. Main thing I can think of is the really common biblical metaphor of God the potter making people from clay. Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay. Now if you take that literally in Genesis, then of course it does contradict common ancestry. But why should we want to take a common biblical metaphor literally when science shows us that is mistaken? This is of course the church father's approach that there can be different interpretations of a passage but if one is shown to be wrong by science is wasn't what scripture meant.

Good point! At one time I by default believed, in my mind, that common ancestry was true. It was taught in school and of course everything you learn in school is right, right? However after becoming an adult and investigating the facts, or should I say the lack thereof, I found the idea rather wanting. To be honest, I read the Bible and it spoke to my spirit and convicted me of the plain truth of its words. Then I looked deeper and found nothing to dissuade me from that position. To be even more honest, initially it was part of the reason for coming to CF, more specifically OT. I needed to know if other Christians could be effective in shooting holes in Creationism, obviously I found they couldn't.

I bought into creationist arguments as a young and pretty literalist Christian too. They are exciting, but I found myself pushing the problems to one side. I disliked and distrusted allegory and typology, it seemed you could make scripture say anything that way. But because I took scripture seriously I kept being challenged by the fact that scripture had a very different attitude to metaphors and allegory than I had. They spoke in metaphors and parables and allegory and sometimes you simply could not tell if they were speaking literally or metaphorically. Worse still NT writers interpreted the Old Testament in way that a a literalist seemed totally unwarranted. Something had to give. How could I be a literalist when my literal reading of the bible told me God loved metaphors?

Apples and oranges to me. One (heliocentrism) has no real spiritual significance the other, creationism, does!

The integrity of God's word is of spiritual significance, so is our approach to interpreting scripture and how we deal with challenges to our interpretation when contradicted by science. If abandoning our interpretation because of science is compromising with the world, then that is of deep spiritual significance. If we make excuses for abandoning one literal interpretation because of science, but not another, then that is hypocrisy which is also of deep spiritual significance.

Well if that's the case every time I give my opinion or espouse something it is a man made idea. So yes, I confess to giving a lot of man made ideas.

Yep. So why hold on to your man made literal interpretation of Genesis when when man made but rigorously tested and repeatedly confirmed evolution and geology tell you you got it wrong? I mean if God told you to interpret Genesis literally, that would be one thing, but all you have is a man made interpretation based on a man made interpretive rule that has no basis in the bible itself.

 

[vossler]

Unfortunately you switch from your broad brush to a tar brush

Interesting response, I take it you believe that all who claim Christ are genuine believers?

That is understandable, you prefer discussing scripture rather than creation science. It is the creationists who are into creation science who are more likely to discuss the subject with atheist and agnostics, if you are going to discuss Genesis then your main conversation with be with TEs.

That's because there isn't much science to discuss. I would disagree with your assessment that when discussing Genesis that my main conversation will be with TEs, I believe atheists and agnostics are just as strong a subject. Sadly many of them have become tainted by the evolutionary mindset.

Yet very little in the bible to contradict it, and only if you think it is literal. Main thing I can think of is the really common biblical metaphor of God the potter making people from clay. Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay. Now if you take that literally in Genesis, then of course it does contradict common ancestry. But why should we want to take a common biblical metaphor literally when science shows us that is mistaken? This is of course the church father's approach that there can be different interpretations of a passage but if one is shown to be wrong by science is wasn't what scripture meant.

There is very little in the Bible to contradict much of what some people purport as fact. A flat earth and aliens from outer space are but two of them, that doesn't however make them anymore true.

I bought into creationist arguments as a young and pretty literalist Christian too. They are exciting, but I found myself pushing the problems to one side. I disliked and distrusted allegory and typology, it seemed you could make scripture say anything that way. But because I took scripture seriously I kept being challenged by the fact that scripture had a very different attitude to metaphors and allegory than I had. They spoke in metaphors and parables and allegory and sometimes you simply could not tell if they were speaking literally or metaphorically. Worse still NT writers interpreted the Old Testament in way that a a literalist seemed totally unwarranted. Something had to give. How could I be a literalist when my literal reading of the bible told me God loved metaphors?

I find it hard to believe that someone could come to TE without heavily relying on the "facts of evolution". Everything I ever see is where the 'science' drives the theology, not the other way around.

The integrity of God's word is of spiritual significance, so is our approach to interpreting scripture and how we deal with challenges to our interpretation when contradicted by science. If abandoning our interpretation because of science is compromising with the world, then that is of deep spiritual significance. If we make excuses for abandoning one literal interpretation because of science, but not another, then that is hypocrisy which is also of deep spiritual significance.

I have nothing against this train of thought. I guess it just comes down to where you draw the line.

Yep. So why hold on to your man made literal interpretation of Genesis when when man made but rigorously tested and repeatedly confirmed evolution and geology tell you you got it wrong? I mean if God told you to interpret Genesis literally, that would be one thing, but all you have is a man made interpretation based on a man made interpretive rule that has no basis in the bible itself.

I hold on to nothing man made, I hold on to the Truth. Man made things don't interest me. You are rather funny, in one sentence you question why someone should hold onto a man made interpretation and then in the same sentence you chastise for not believing in a man made theory. I guess it comes down to what is convenient to your point of view.

 

[crawfish]

You are certainly right not to worry about such things.

I would like to, but I've really got to counter the "science" of those godless meteorologists.

 

[vossler]

I would like to, but I've really got to counter the "science" of those godless meteorologists.

A man's got to do what a man's got to do!

 

[Assyrian]

Interesting response, I take it you believe that all who claim Christ are genuine believers?

Not in the least. The problem was using this as a response to church fathers who interpreted Genesis figuratively, unless you are claiming that if they interpreted Genesis figuratively they mustn't have been real Christians.

That's because there isn't much science to discuss.

The number and thickness of my old books on creation science would beg to differ

I would disagree with your assessment that when discussing Genesis that my main conversation will be with TEs, I believe atheists and agnostics are just as strong a subject. Sadly many of them have become tainted by the evolutionary mindset.

Tainted? You are talking as if this was a sad new development. Of course atheists and agnostics accept evolution.

There is very little in the Bible to contradict much of what some people purport as fact. A flat earth and aliens from outer space are but two of them, that doesn't however make them anymore true.

So you go with what the scientific evidence shows us, and unlike flat earth and aliens, common ancestry is very well established. The problem is you are the one trying to contradict common ancestry from the bible, but if all you have is a very common metaphor you want to take literally, you really don't have any basis for your claim.

I find it hard to believe that someone could come to TE without heavily relying on the "facts of evolution". Everything I ever see is where the 'science' drives the theology, not the other way around.

The church relied heavily on the facts of heliocentrism when they realised their traditional geocentric interpretations were wrong, but science does not tell us what our theology should be, it just shows us the bits like geocentrism and creationism we got wrong. Oddly enough TEs line up a lot closer to traditional theological understanding of how God operates in his creation both by miracles and through natural processes. Creationism keeps running aground on the idea that if we see natural processes in action, somehow that excludes God.

I have nothing against this train of thought. I guess it just comes down to where you draw the line.

Seems rather convenient that the line you have drawn lies right between the scientific controversies the church had to struggle over and come to terms with in the past, and the ones we are responsible for dealing with today. Where would we be today if the church in the past had stood firm over geocentrism?

I hold on to nothing man made,I hold on to the Truth. Man made things don't interest me.

You still have the David Cooper quote in your sig

You are rather funny, in one sentence you question why someone should hold onto a man made interpretation and then in the same sentence you chastise for not believing in a man made theory. I guess it comes down to what is convenient to your point of view.

I though I addressed that in my reply You are not simply comparing two man made ideas. Evolution may be a man made idea, but the reason people accept it is because it has been rigorously tested and confirmed. On the other hand you hold on to the Copper quote in spite of the fact there is no basis for it. Evolution can be tested by science. Cooper's quote should at least be supportable from scripture, but it isn't. It is simply his bright idea of how to interpret scripture.

 

[vossler]

Not in the least. The problem was using this as a response to church fathers who interpreted Genesis figuratively, unless you are claiming that if they interpreted Genesis figuratively they mustn't have been real Christians.

I really don't know what you are referring to, I was simply stating/acknowledging I used a broad brush to state all Christians held to a six day creation account and then comparing that statement to someone believing all who claim Christ to be Christians. You simply can't use absolutes when describing people, except when you say all are sinners.

The number and thickness of my old books on creation science would beg to differ

I'm glad that impresses you.

Tainted? You are talking as if this was a sad new development. Of course atheists and agnostics accept evolution.

It has provided a safe escape from the truth, and yes that is sad.

So you go with what the scientific evidence shows us, and unlike flat earth and aliens, common ancestry is very well established.

If using conjecture and speculation as the anchor to prove your facts then yes things are certainly well established.

The problem is you are the one trying to contradict common ancestry from the bible, but if all you have is a very common metaphor you want to take literally, you really don't have any basis for your claim.

No I am plainly stating there is not a single scripture to support common ancestry.

Oddly enough TEs line up a lot closer to traditional theological understanding of how God operates in his creation both by miracles and through natural processes.

Is this where we are now, TEs are more traditional than creationists? You'd make a good politician!

Creationism keeps running aground on the idea that if we see natural processes in action, somehow that excludes God.

I have no idea what you are referring to, there are no natural processes I am aware of that exclude God.

Where would we be today if the church in the past had stood firm over geocentrism?

No different a place than we are today. As I said before, geocentrism has no spiritual significance.

You still have the David Cooper quote in your sig

Yeah but I could drop it in a New York minute without it having any effect on how I see God and the world. You can't say the same about evolution.

I though I addressed that in my reply You are not simply comparing two man made ideas. Evolution may be a man made idea, but the reason people accept it is because it has been rigorously tested and confirmed. On the other hand you hold on to the Copper quote in spite of the fact there is no basis for it. Evolution can be tested by science. Cooper's quote should at least be supportable from scripture, but it isn't. It is simply his bright idea of how to interpret scripture.

Does it matter how much men have tested and confirmed something to be true? You yourself stated geocentrism was held to be true for thousands of years. As far as Cooper's quote, it is a theory that can be tested by the very thing it refers to.

 

[gluadys]

Yeah but I could drop it in a New York minute without it having any effect on how I see God and the world.

You can't say the same about evolution.

Maybe that's because Cooper's quote is not a description of the real world--not even the real world of scripture. But evolution is a description of the reality of creation.

Does it matter how much men have tested and confirmed something to be true? You yourself stated geocentrism was held to be true for thousands of years.

Geocentrism was held to for thousands of years without being tested or confirmed, or even questioned. When it was questioned and tested it was disconfirmed. So, yes, it does matter.

As far as Cooper's quote, it is a theory that can be tested by the very thing it refers to.

We have been over this several times before; testing his opinion by scripture shows that it is a poor guide to understanding scripture.