• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Genesis, a historical book?

Status
Not open for further replies.

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
60
✟43,600.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Micaiah said:
Herev,

Why don't you accept that God created the world in six days. Scripture plainly asserts that is the case.
It's not in keeping with God's other book for one thing, but you see Micaiah--you begin with the assumption that I used to believe it was six days and then was talked out of that--not everyone was brought up with that belief. I have always believed that 6 days was not to be taken literally, so it's kinda like asking me why I believe that my parents are my parents--they've always been so. And yet, here again, you choose to evade my questions with another question.
Not every Christian or Jew is brought up being taught that the creation accounts in Genesis are to be taken literally. And so there was no Darwinian conspiracy to get me away from any "plain" teaching of the Bible. It is quite in keeping with the "plain" teaching of Scriptures as I see it.
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
Okay, as I see it, you are convinced that the plain teaching of Scripture is not that it is an historical record of Creation. The main reason supporting this assertion is that there is apparently a large body of physical evidence that is so certain, it can be considered scientific fact.

That evidence includes things like all of the examples in nature of mutations that have resulted in a gain in genetic information that has lead to the development of organs with entire new functions that previously never existed. Last tidme I heard, they are still looking for a good example of such a mutation. It includes the striking evidence of worm burrows that exist in deep layers of mud. Those burrows were the result of millions of years of digging. Did the worm change over those millions of years. Apparently not. In fact they remained so retrograde they could never dig deeper than four feet. And if you imagined the burrowing speed could have improved over those millions of years, you were wrong. These worms were slow diggers. They had to be. If they dug too fast, then it could be construed as fitting in with the Genesis account of the flood. Enough on the evidence.

For the TE's the scientific evidence is so conclusive that it proves beyond all doubt the plain account of Creation given in Genesis is wrong. Therefore the plain account is not the plain account. The plain account is that the plain account is not the plain account because evolution is true and Genesis is wrong. The plain account is that Genesis must have been intended as a fairy story because evolution is not a fairy story. Evolution is scientific, and factual.

Plain as day. (In saying day here I am not referring to millions of years but alluding to the qualities of day that make it clear, bright, and plain)
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
artybloke said:
Not to me it doesn't, because it conflicts with the plain revelation of God in His universe that the universe was created in 12-20 billion years. God cannot lie; therefore my interpretation of scripture must be at fault.
I think you need read this!
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
artybloke said:
Oh give us a break! Same old same old. Same lies, same misinformation, same attempt to play on the gullibility of Christians who know nowt about science.
The methods of dating are dubious for example...a German biochemist dated remains at 12 000 years however a number of years later Oxford University dated them at 300 years...oh such accuracy
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
a) What remains?
b) What dating methods were used in both cases?
c) What precautions against contamination were used (in both cases?)
d) Was more than one method of dating used to check accuracy (in both cases?)
e) What's to bet that at least one of the scientists involved wasn't using the proper proceedures for carrying out the dating?
f) What's to bet that at least one of them was not using the proper proceedures deliberately to supposedly show up a dating method?
g)Were they even using the right dating method for the material being analysed? (Remember: C14 can only be used on organic material, it can't be used to date rocks or fossils, and it can't be used on anything that used to live in the sea.)
h) Don't try and pull the wool over my eyes. Where's the properly referenced, peer-reviewed sources for these stories? (Creationist web sites don't count. I want scientific journals.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Hmm.

I find thirty clocks in a box. They are all ticking.

Half of them say it's between 3.25 and 3.35. The other half say a random assortment of times.

Do I conclude:

(a) it's half past three and half the clocks don't work properly
(b) none of the clocks work properly and the half that say it's around 3.30 are a coincidence?
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
" For the TE's the scientific evidence is so conclusive that it proves beyond all doubt the plain account of Creation given in Genesis is wrong. Therefore the plain account is not the plain account. The plain account is that the plain account is not the plain account because evolution is true and Genesis is wrong. The plain account is that Genesis must have been intended as a fairy story because evolution is not a fairy story. Evolution is scientific, and factual."

You are purposefully misrepresenting TE thinking, and you know it. That is not Christian.

1. The reason for believing that the plain reading of Genesis is non-literal is not based solely on scientific evidence, but on the text itself, its literary style, and the cultural and historical background. As I pointed out, I had concluded that these Scriptures were almost assuredly not meant to be read literally LONG before I saw a single piece of scientific evidence disproving a young earth. This is why many Jews and Christians have been reading it non-literally for a VERY long time.

2. Your statement that "the plain account of Creation given in Genesis is wrong" is another misrepresentation. We think the plain account is absolutely correct, and that plain account is non-literal, period. We do NOT think the plain account is literal, which is your own interpretation.

3. Your second to last sentence doesn't even make sense. But, regardless, you already know that we don't think the Creation account is a fairy tale, since we have told you this many times, so your statement is a presentation of a knowing falsehood.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP

You are forgetting the internal textual evidence which supports the thesis of a non-literal interpretation. Genesis was being interpreted non-literally long before science entered the picture with additional reasons for a non-literal interpretation.


Time you caught up with current science. Indeed it is time you caught up with Darwin. You haven't mentioned natural selection. Mutations don't drive evolution all on their own and no scientist has ever suggested they do.



It includes the striking evidence of worm burrows that exist in deep layers of mud. Those burrows were the result of millions of years of digging.

Now you are wilfully misrepresenting the evidence put to you. No one burrow was the result of millions of years of digging and you know it. Rather many different burrows were dug over millions of years, but each is the product of the activity of one animal or at most one colony of animals (like rabbit burrows or ant hills). And we needn't even presume the animal spent its whole life on burrow digging.


Did the worm change over those millions of years. Apparently not. In fact they remained so retrograde they could never dig deeper than four feet.

What's retrograde about that? If four feet is all you need, why dig deeper? After all, the purpose is not to dig, but to have a burrow for some purpose such as shelter. It's not retrograde to suit the burrow to its purpose.


And if you imagined the burrowing speed could have improved over those millions of years, you were wrong. These worms were slow diggers.

Again, what would be the selective pressure that would put a premium on speedy construction? It was not as if they were being paid a bonus to meet a deadline.

They had to be. If they dug too fast, then it could be construed as fitting in with the Genesis account of the flood. Enough on the evidence.

Prejudice and ignorance. "Enough on the evidence" indeed. For you have none to support your prejudice.


For the TE's the scientific evidence is so conclusive that it proves beyond all doubt the plain account of Creation given in Genesis is wrong.

You are forgetting that TEs believe the Creation account is truth. "Not literal" does not mean "not true". The Genesis account is not wrong.
 
Upvote 0

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
60
✟43,600.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Micaiah said:
Okay, as I see it
and here begins the problem--the way you see it is an interpretation--yet you either cannot or will not admit that you have interpreted not only the creation accounts in Genesis, but our beliefs as well. If your interpretive abilities are to be judged on how well you interpret us, is it any wonder, we're not willing to follow your lead with respect to Genesis 1 and 2?


Micaiah said:
you are convinced that the plain teaching of Scripture is not that it is an historical record of Creation.
That much, you have correct, good for you!


Micaiah said:
The main reason supporting this assertion is that there is apparently a large body of physical evidence that is so certain, it can be considered scientific fact.
I wouldn't say the main reason, no. While it varies from TE to TE, it is a part of the reasoning, but only with one major correction (for me). IT's not about scientific fact, it's about being the most convincing. Evoution is a theory, and I am willing to be proved wrong, but not by insults and accusations and character assassination.


Micaiah said:
That evidence includes things like all of the examples in nature of mutations that have resulted in a gain in genetic information that has lead to the development of organs with entire new functions that previously never existed.
The evidence for me is the testimony of those who know the theory and and who are also Christian. I personally do not try to quote different places to try to find mutations. My main concern here is that those that hold to TE theology are treated as less than full Christian brothers and sisters--which in itself is not a Chrsitian attitude. Having said all of that, why do you dismiss God's infinite abilities? Why is it that you are so certain God couldn't make those things happen that you presume to be impossible or unlikely? If God wanted to initiate a means of creation whereby there were net gains in genetic information (which is documented by mutations we see today) to the point where organs will eventually be in place that never existed? Why limit God so?


Micaiah said:
Last tidme I heard, they are still looking for a good example of such a mutation.
Well, what you hear is not that important to my theology as you have repeatedly not demonstrated any evidence as to why I should listen to you when you present evidence. You have mistated over and over again what we TE's believe; hence you have no credibility to persuade me on creationism.


I'll leave gluadys's response cover this, see above


Micaiah said:
For the TE's the scientific evidence is so conclusive that it proves beyond all doubt the plain account of Creation given in Genesis is wrong.
I don't believe that any scientifically oriented person would actually say "beyond all doubt" but the evidence does show that the creation accounts are NOT LITERAL. That does NOT however mean wrong--Again, a willful misrepresentation of what we believe. We do not nor have we ever suggested that it is WRONG, but that YOUR INTERPRETATION is different from our interpretation.


This is irrational and nonsensical. Will you ever stop and define plain? Or is it that you have such a good time using non-definitive terms as ploys that you do not want to give it up?


Micaiah said:
Plain as day. (In saying day here I am not referring to millions of years but alluding to the qualities of day that make it clear, bright, and plain)
It's neither, actually and does not further your cause one bit, but I"m not surprised, unfortunately.
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟25,661.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
It goes like this:

-We say that we believe that the Genesis creation account (GCA) is true, but not historical.
-Micaiah responds that we believe the GCA is false, a meaningless fairy tale.
-We correct Micaiah by saying that it is neither false nor meaningless, and that "fairy tale" is a perjorative appellation for a non-historical story, and fails to account for the divine authorization and approval that puts the GCA in our Bibles.
-Micaiah responds that we believe the GCA is false, a meaningless fairy tale.

This repeats ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Perhaps I can clarify what you mean, Micaiah (and correct me if I'm wrong): an unhistorical account, no matter how true and divinely inspired, has no more value to you than a false, meaningless fairy tale. Historicity seems to be of paramount importance to you. Why?
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
1) The burrows were dug in ROCK, not mud.

2) They were slow because they were digging through solid ROCK.

3) Even if the superworms could dig four feet a day, it doesn't explain how the solid ROCK they were digging in got there in the middle of a flood with sediment underneath it and above it. The flood model can't explain the ROCK. Until it does, no need to worry about the worms rate of burrowing.

4) We also have burrows of land animals that apparently were digging and building nests during the flood.

You have misrepresented what has been presented to you and as I pointed out in the thread you got this from, you only look at a single piece of evidence (and don't even try to explain it in a creationists model) without looking at how it relates to other evidence around it. There are several independent lines of evidence that falsify the flood model. The flood model would need to address all of them without contradiction. Instead we have a raging, but calm, flood that can cover and protect the faintest spider track with a thin layer of sediment, yet carves canyons and caves through solid ROCK with ease.

The creationist model also never really addresses the whole ROCK issue in the first place. How long did the rock take to form that makes up the geologic column? The best we get is an example of "rock can be made quickly" by taking one (usually unrelated) example and extrapolating it to every type of rock known. This is similar to the 'Mount Saint Helens flood model" where volcanic ash is compared to limestone layers.

The modern mainstream model of geology can explain what we find. The flood model can't. If the evidence in creation contradicts my interpretation of scripture, then my interpretation of scripture must be wrong. The creation is the handiwork of God and I can't see that it would paint a fairytale of its existence to mislead us.
 
Upvote 0
B

brinley45cal

Guest
Micaiah said:
What parts of the Creation account do you consider to be a historical record. Why / why not?

What parts of Genenis do you consider a historical record. Why / why not?
All of it.if the bible says it that settles it.If someone dont want to belive how i belive thats there buisness,but as for me if the bible says it thats how it is.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
brinley45cal said:
All of it.if the bible says it that settles it.If someone dont want to belive how i belive thats there buisness,but as for me if the bible says it thats how it is.
But what does the Bible say?

I agree that what the Bible says is true. In fact, we should get that straight from the very beginning and everyone should be on the "same page" about this: most of us Christians who accept evolution believe the Bible, we believe that what it says is true. We believe it tells us more truth than science ever can. We would never take Man's theories and concepts about anything that can not be reconciled with the Bible.

There, that is settled.

Now, the only point to discuss is what the Bible actually says. Is it literal or figurative? Is it always historical, or is it occasionally allegorical or a unhistorical story containing God's Holy Truth? Is Man's attempt to interpret Scripture any more reliable than his attempt to study God's Creation?

To make your statement above answers none of these questions and seem to not understand what the rest of us believe.
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
We've seen a subtle shift in the arguments put forward by the TE's lately. It wasn't that long ago we were reading that the reason they concluded the plain interpretation of the Genesis account of origins was wrong was almost exclusively because it contradicted the scientific evidence. Remember the stories about how we'd be saying God's Creation is deceptive if evolution was not real. I'm happy to go through and ferret out all those past posts if someone wants to dispute this. Now they are saying that just as important is the of the writing style itself.

Can we have the weighting of these factors. Give it as writing style:scientific evidence. Are we talking 50:50, or maybe 30:70.

Funny how most of the traditional orthodox Jewish position was that the world was Created in six literal days. If they considered the literature to be interpretted literally, and so did Moses, then why should we consider the writings to be mythical, allegorical, fairy tales, or whatever other word you want.

I note the TE's are desperately trying to sabotage the word 'plain' and claim it for their own interpretation. I'd like to see how many people if presented with the gospel genealogies without any previous exposure to Scripture, would think the references to people in the Genealogies of Christ were anything but real people. Strange that the inspired authors of Scripture would on the one hand refer to real people up to the times of Genesis and suddenly refer to a mythical Adam and Eve.

Lets hear more from the TE's about the internal evidence to support the notion that a day means anything other than a day. ie a twenty four hour period, or the internal evidence that shows Adam and Eve were anything *but real people*.

Until they can provide undeniable evidence for their case, it is proper to assign the term 'plain' to the historical record given in Genesis. It is proper to consider any attempt to equate 'plain' with the TE interpretation of Genesis as a gross distortion of the truth.

* Edit
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green


i'd recommend that you look at the first two chapters of _in the beginning, here is my review, this might help show that the plain meaning relies on literary analysis. like all framework interpretation adherents, the text itself is primary.

 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.