Genesis - Lets Hear It From The Other Side

[Dannager]

Sounds like you have something to say after someone jumped out. So, here I am, a literalist.

Hey, laptoppop. I know you've posted in this thread, so just in case you read this, I've highlighted part of juvenissun's post that you should be aware of. It'd probably be good to read the rest of his post to, especially where he specifically states that we should take the Bible literally.

 

[crawfish]

No, but if the explanation is based on a methodology that specifically excludes the supernatural, you are describing a different reality than mine. God is real, and active. (which I actually think we both would agree with -- I'm just trying to help you see the limits of the scientific method -- one must understand the results of presuppositions.)

Well, there is only one reality.

There are a vast array of hypotheses on how God interacts with the universe. Some say that God is responsible for the movement of every atom, for every event that occurs He is behind it. On the opposite end, there are those who believe God created the universe and now sits back and watches it go. I feel that both of us probably sit somewhere in the middle, where there are some processes that "drive themselves", and a God who intercedes supernaturally as need be. Our difference lies in how much we think He intercedes.

My feeling is that most of what happens - 99.9999% - is fueled by the natural processes God set up from the beginning. I believe he acts supernaturally through a human medium; i.e., answering prayer. It is through our petitions that He performs miracles that defy the natural order of things, but otherwise, the world goes on as it will.

I'm sure you think differently.

I ask you - what happens when we assume the supernatural for something and it turns out we're wrong? There were people hundreds of years ago that were every bit as confident that the earth was the center of the universe, based on the same bible you read. If science never went beyond the supernatural, science would then face a stranglehold with that belief and we wouldn't know what we know today.

 

[crawfish]

1. If we do not read the Bible literally, it would be like to drive in the open field: any direction would be OK.

This is a strawman argument. Ask any TE who believes in a more allegorical/symbolic view of the Bible if they believe its an "open field" - the answer is no. I'm just as strict as many in how the bible applies to our lives, stricter than most.

2. Problems caused by literal reading may not be real problems. Ancient people read the Scripture and thought the earth is flat. That was OK. It hurt nothing. Now we read the same verses and can appreciate the wisdom hidden in the words. That is beautiful. You think you know what is flat and what is round. Don't be so sure until you learn some geometry in topology. If we turned the Earth inside out (like what we think the Venus is doing), it may not be so round. It may even be truly flat after all.

You think this happens because we continue to read the bible literally? No, what actually happens is that incontestable knowledge that conflicts with our view of scripture FORCES us to re-interpret it in a way that stays consistent with known facts. We find hidden wisdom because we're forced to look past the obvious meaning and see the deeper meaning underneath.

Read the 4000 years old Scripture by having a modern scientific glasses on, not only the old old verses are more and more conformable with the understanding of modern science, but they are still able to guide the direction of future scientific research. Well, I can only see the All Wisdom of God in His Words. I would NOT want to read the Bible any other way.

I, too, see great wisdom in God's words. I see that God isn't creating a science or history book, but a beautiful, amazing book of theology in which He reveals elements of His nature to us. It has every bit as much meaning if books such as Genesis, Job, Ruth and Esther are allegorical instead of literal.

 

[laptoppop]

My feeling is that most of what happens - 99.9999% - is fueled by the natural processes God set up from the beginning.

For the most part, I'd agree with this.

I believe he acts supernaturally through a human medium; i.e., answering prayer. It is through our petitions that He performs miracles that defy the natural order of things, but otherwise, the world goes on as it will.

I'd be VERY careful about limiting the way that God acts. He does as He wills, not just one way.

The big point I want you to recognize are the limits and preconceptions of the scientific method. It is useful for what it is useful for, but it has definite limits.

 

[shernren]

My feeling is that most of what happens - 99.9999% - is fueled by the natural processes God set up from the beginning. I believe he acts supernaturally through a human medium; i.e., answering prayer. It is through our petitions that He performs miracles that defy the natural order of things, but otherwise, the world goes on as it will.

The universe has no right to exist. That it does is continually dependent upon the grace and sustaining power of God, as the Bible proclaims in many places e.g. Genesis 1, John 1, Colossians 1. (Not all of these, of course, are to be taken literally. ) As such, what does it mean to have a "natural order of things"? Can something whose very existence depends on God maintain itself apart from Him?

I agree that the interaction between God and the universe is mysterious and hard, if not impossible, to describe accurately. But we should avoid certain words and ideas, and one of them is that God "set up from the beginning" certain things. It reflects the idea that God started the universe up and then let it go on its own. He didn't; the universe is as dependent on Him to exist right now as it depended on Him to begin existing right from the beginning. God is at the very least the Ground of All Being, and anything "natural" comes from Him as much as anything "supernatural" ... creationism notwithstanding.

 

[laptoppop]

The universe has no right to exist. That it does is continually dependent upon the grace and sustaining power of God, as the Bible proclaims in many places e.g. Genesis 1, John 1, Colossians 1. (Not all of these, of course, are to be taken literally. ) As such, what does it mean to have a "natural order of things"? Can something whose very existence depends on God maintain itself apart from Him?

I agree that the interaction between God and the universe is mysterious and hard, if not impossible, to describe accurately. But we should avoid certain words and ideas, and one of them is that God "set up from the beginning" certain things. It reflects the idea that God started the universe up and then let it go on its own. He didn't; the universe is as dependent on Him to exist right now as it depended on Him to begin existing right from the beginning. God is at the very least the Ground of All Being, and anything "natural" comes from Him as much as anything "supernatural" ... creationism notwithstanding.

 

[crawfish]

I'd be VERY careful about limiting the way that God acts. He does as He wills, not just one way.

The big point I want you to recognize are the limits and preconceptions of the scientific method. It is useful for what it is useful for, but it has definite limits.

Well, technically, I'm not limiting...I'm just noticing. God wants us to express our free will and choose Him. He can't rightfully do this if he's mucking about with too much.

What God CAN do and what God DOES do are two very different things. I notice that the farther on into the bible you get, the more concentrated God's miracles are in a person to perform them, so as to ensure that God gets the glory for the event.

Shenren - When I say God "set up things from the beginning", I'm assuming that the laws He put into place would lead to an inevitable conclusion. It's not a blind pool shot hoping something goes in - it's a very deliberate sinking of the last solid, leaving the cue ball with a perfect shot for getting the 8-ball in the corner.

 

[crawfish]

I agree that the interaction between God and the universe is mysterious and hard, if not impossible, to describe accurately. But we should avoid certain words and ideas, and one of them is that God "set up from the beginning" certain things. It reflects the idea that God started the universe up and then let it go on its own. He didn't; the universe is as dependent on Him to exist right now as it depended on Him to begin existing right from the beginning. God is at the very least the Ground of All Being, and anything "natural" comes from Him as much as anything "supernatural" ... creationism notwithstanding.

Oh, and just to clarify - just because God "set things into motion by creating natural laws to govern it" doesn't mean its independent of Him. Most Christians accept the concept of free will; by accepting that, we automatically accept that God has necessarily limited His influence on the universe.

 

[laptoppop]

Oh, and just to clarify - just because God "set things into motion by creating natural laws to govern it" doesn't mean its independent of Him. Most Christians accept the concept of free will; by accepting that, we automatically accept that God has necessarily limited His influence on the universe.

Actually, the Bible also teaches predestination -- He chose us, we didn't choose Him.

It is hard to understand how they work together. For me, an understanding of God being outside of time reconciles the two.

 

[crawfish]

Actually, the Bible also teaches predestination -- He chose us, we didn't choose Him.

It is hard to understand how they work together. For me, an understanding of God being outside of time reconciles the two.

Heh. I'm not getting into THAT argument again. Suffice it to say, I'm

But, you're right about a God outside of time, who can see the effects of the choices we make before we make them. I believe that all time and all possibilities are spread out in front of Him like a map.

I undertook the whole Calvinist/Arminian study again a few years ago, and I'm not the former and not completely the latter.

 

[Digit]

Oh for...

Are you guys blind? Did I not specifically request one very simple thing?

1) Only those who think Genesis is a literal account, need reply.

What are you doing here? Are these instructions hard to follow? Are they really that hard? You just can't keep your opinion to yourself, even when I created a thread where you and only you could specifically reply there, with exactly your opinion? I don't know if it's insecurity, arrogance, sheer stupidity or just stubborness, but I am begining to see why you aren't allowed to post in the Creationism forum, because to be quite honest, you are a pain in the ass.

Thank you to those that didn't post in this thread, you know who you are. It's really appreciated that you feel secure and confident enough in your position to allow others time to discuss and learn more about it, and compare it to theirs without feeling under duress from invasive postings.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[juvenissun]

You think this happens because we continue to read the bible literally? No, what actually happens is that incontestable knowledge that conflicts with our view of scripture FORCES us to re-interpret it in a way that stays consistent with known facts. We find hidden wisdom because we're forced to look past the obvious meaning and see the deeper meaning underneath.

I do not agree. You get the sequence reversed.

Bible verses did not force the advance of science.

The advance of science (by other reasons) reveals more and more literal truth of the Bible. There are still a lot of rooms to go.

 

[Digit]

Sounds like you have something to say after someone jumped out. So, here I am, a literalist.

There are several reasons, just name two: 1. If we do not read the Bible literally, it would be like to drive in the open field: any direction would be OK. 2. Problems caused by literal reading may not be real problems. Ancient people read the Scripture and thought the earth is flat. That was OK. It hurt nothing. Now we read the same verses and can appreciate the wisdom hidden in the words. That is beautiful. You think you know what is flat and what is round. Don't be so sure until you learn some geometry in topology. If we turned the Earth inside out (like what we think the Venus is doing), it may not be so round. It may even be truly flat after all.

Read the 4000 years old Scripture by having a modern scientific glasses on, not only the old old verses are more and more conformable with the understanding of modern science, but they are still able to guide the direction of future scientific research. Well, I can only see the All Wisdom of God in His Words. I would NOT want to read the Bible any other way.

So, what are you going to say?

Er... nothing? I agree with you. I started these threads to assess my own view of the Bible, and to determine if I am correct in rejecting a figurative view of Genesis, and accepting a literal one. I believe in Creationism, that is, God created all, rather than He used evolution to create.

Digit

 

[Digit]

Pretty please, don't debate in here. Go start another thread, you have an entire forum to do it in, just don't choose this thread.

Thank you in advance.
Digit

 

[laptoppop]

I apologize -- not for posting here, but for answering arguments and not letting them die of silence.

 

[theIdi0t]

Oh for...

Are you guys blind? Did I not specifically request one very simple thing?

1) Only those who think Genesis is a literal account, need reply.

Well, if you wanted to restrict the thread to only creationist, you should have posted it in the creationist subforum. Any post that lay in this area, is fair game, so no reason to cry fowl. I'm not going to raid your thread, but you should have been wiser in choosing a spot to plot this thread down.

 

[Digit]

Anyone is allowed to specify some requests for threads, it's simply good manners and common courteousy to respect them.

You didn't seem to have any issues when I did the exact same and allowed non-literal replies there. I see the exact same posting behaviour in the open forums too, and I specifically wanted here to allows others to read it and hear people's views, without A) Having to wade deeper into the sub-forums and B) Without any negative impact that messy debates invoke.

Please keep that in mind.
Thanks,
Digit

 

[laptoppop]

As I understand rule 2.8 around here, the original post has every right to define to limits of discussion, just as people are free to start other threads with different limits.

 

[theIdi0t]

Anyone is allowed to specify some requests for threads, it's simply good manners and common courteousy to respect them.

You didn't seem to have any issues when I did the exact same and allowed non-literal replies there. I see the exact same posting behaviour in the open forums too, and I specifically wanted here to allows others to read it and hear people's views, without A) Having to wade deeper into the sub-forums and B) Without any negative impact that messy debates invoke.

Please keep that in mind.
Thanks,
Digit

The thing is, individuals are going to wander into this thread, and most are not going to bother reading the OP, they are just going to read the last few ones, and respond to anything that spikes their interest.

It's quite naive to come into the open forums, and say you can read but don't respond, particularly when a post on "literalism" or a post on "non-literalism", is going to cross a few sour spots, that the parties you are trying to keep out, are going to feel inclined to respond to.

If you want to have a private creationist conversation, then go over there into the private creationist subforum, if a TE is interested in reading conversations among YECs, he'll find his way into the subforums, and read without responding, to his heart's desire.

That whole, little tantrum a few post ago wasn't appreciated, that type of uncalled for language gets under my skin. Someone runs across a thread in the open forum, they assume they can respond, if you have such an issue with this, you shouldn't be posting here in the first place.

You have a no opposition response zone, so go use it, rather than foaming at the mouth, adding hostility to a thread that wasn't there to begin with.

 

[Digit]

The thing is, individuals are going to wander into this thread, and most are not going to bother reading the OP, they are just going to read the last few ones, and respond to anything that spikes their interest.

It's quite naive to come into the open forums, and say you can read but don't respond, particularly when a post on "literalism" or a post on "non-literalism", is going to cross a few sour spots, that the parties you are trying to keep out, are going to feel inclined to respond to.

If you want to have a private creationist conversation, then go over there into the private creationist subforum, if a TE is interested in reading conversations among YECs, he'll find his way into the subforums, and read without responding, to his heart's desire.

That whole, little tantrum a few post ago wasn't appreciated, that type of uncalled for language gets under my skin. Someone runs across a thread in the open forum, they assume they can respond, if you have such an issue with this, you shouldn't be posting here in the first place.

You have a no opposition response zone, so go use it, rather than foaming at the mouth, adding hostility to a thread that wasn't there to begin with.

Ok, agreed. Apologies for the outburst.

All the best,
Digit