Help - I need a name!!

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Is there a name for this belief in creationism?


Let me say STRAIGHT up that I believe God created the whole world (phew, got that out of the way).

I want to know if there is a 'banner' I can put my (and most of my friends/family) beliefs under in Creationism so that everytime someone asks me I don't need to just give a long drawn out explanation, but just have the 'title', so to speak.

I believe God created the world in seven days. However, I do not necessarily believe that it was seven days as what we call seven days. This has to do with us following the Roman Calendar, and who was scribing, more than anything else. I don't believe that the period called a day in that time HAS to be the same time frame that we NOW call a day. I don't have a problem either if I've proven to be wrong - I just think it could be one OR the other.

I also believe that God created us with certain 'genetics/abilities/whatever' to ADAPT to changes in environment, seasons, etc. I.E. - God created the animal, then put things in place to allow it to adapt to the changing environment (ie ability to grow long thick hair in winter, ability to change sex for breeding purposes, etc). I guess, in its purest definition, that could be called evolution.

When I was in school, we were taught ADAPTATION. Ie God created the world, and created it with an ability to adapt to its environment - and I guess this is the best way to describe what I believe.

Is what I'm describing Creation Evolutionism? I had lots of fights with an ex over this.

Frankly, I don't want to cause a huge debate - I don't personally think this is one of those 'admittance to heaven denied' questions , but I would like a name to put to what I believe.

I've concised this VERY VERY VERY heavily, so PM if you want more information, but I just wanted to know if this had a 'name', and if anyone else felt the same.

At least my boyfriend, family, and church generally do!

Sasch

 

[Sinai]

Sascha:

Please read the options listed at this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t93563

Determine which option best fits your belief and respond accordingly. We may then be able to better answer your question. Thank you.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Thanks...

I guess I don't get caught up in the literal 6 days (ie as we know 6 days to be)... it doesn't bother me either way (whether it was or not), but I do kinda get that grasp on the hebrew word "Day" (yom) being a period of time. So I picked that as the most likely interpretation for me.

I think it gets a bit ridiculous when we're trying to lump in 'oh you don't believe it was a LITERAL 6 days' with 'Jesus being crucified' - ie you don't believe it was 6 days, so you can't believe that Jesus died for your sins, so you can't be a Christian! I got this all the time from my ex-fiance!! Which was SO wrong - I believe it was 6 days, but as to whether or not that is a 24 hour period 'day' as we take it now, well I can't with 100% assuredness say it was. This has to do with the hebrew meaning, who wrote it, and the fact calendars (and time-measuring devices), such as ours were yet to be made.


Please don't try to fight with me over this (as I know some of you are want to do), if you have a valid point, please say it, WITHOUT mockery or 'you're an idiot pagan!' comments coming out

Thanks!

Sasch

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Any period more than a 24 hour day would not only cause mass heat/cold changes on earth, destroying any already created life, but also, when the earth was slowed to the present 24 hour day during the years after creation, it would cause so much a shock to the plates that a massive catastrophe would destory everything, maybe even the entire earth.

 

[Sinai]

I guess I don't get caught up in the literal 6 days (ie as we know 6 days to be)... it doesn't bother me either way (whether it was or not), but I do kinda get that grasp on the hebrew word "Day" (yom) being a period of time. So I picked that as the most likely interpretation for me.

Sasch

The poll option you chose is:

I think the universe is about 11-20 billion years old. Since the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can mean an indefinite period of time, each “day” of creation was of an indefinite period of time (even millions or billions of years) and we shouldn’t get caught up in insisting that the Bible means something here that it probably does not mean [day-age theory].

This would indicate that you are an "old earth creationist" (OEC) who also leans toward the day-age theory. Note that this is totally separate from one's beliefs regarding evolution. Old Earth Creationists pretty well cover the spectrum regarding evolution.

• Some OECs fully believe the theory of evolution as is currently set out in most mainstream science textbooks.
• Some OECs accept the theory of evolution except any portion that deals with random mutation, which they reject. Instead, they say that God caused the mutations to occur.
• Some OECs reject other aspects often found in the theory of evolution and say that God directed most or even all aspects of evolution. In other words, advocates of this view would say that evolution was apparently the tool or procedure God chose to use to populate our planet, but say He caused or directed the changes and mutations.
• Some OECs would limit the scope of evolution to merely those aspects that have been documented sufficiently to satisfy their criterion (which may differ somewhat from one OEC to another).
• Some OECs limit evolution to microevolution (this may in some cases overlap with the preceding category).
• It is at least theoretically possible that some OECs may totally reject evolution, though I have not actually encountered this position.

Most of the persons who say God used and directed evolution will tend to be referred to as theistic evolutionists. You will find much more information regarding their beliefs and reasons within various threads in this forum.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Thanks guys - I appreciate you kinda sharing all that stuff - at this point I agree with that OEC discussion about God providing the means in the animal to adapt. I hate the word evolution cos everyone takes a step back and breathes in in shock

As to days (literally 6) - Bizzlebin - you gave me heaps to think about there...

At present though, I'm prepared to shrug, say 'I can't possibly determine it - I'll wait to get to heaven and ask God what the REAL way was' however with that, I will state what I (and the majority of Christians) believe - that God created the world in 6 days.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Amen! May God bless your studies!

 

[Asar'el]

Thanks...

I guess I don't get caught up in the literal 6 days (ie as we know 6 days to be)... it doesn't bother me either way (whether it was or not), but I do kinda get that grasp on the hebrew word "Day" (yom) being a period of time. So I picked that as the most likely interpretation for me.

I think it gets a bit ridiculous when we're trying to lump in 'oh you don't believe it was a LITERAL 6 days' with 'Jesus being crucified' - ie you don't believe it was 6 days, so you can't believe that Jesus died for your sins, so you can't be a Christian! I got this all the time from my ex-fiance!! Which was SO wrong - I believe it was 6 days, but as to whether or not that is a 24 hour period 'day' as we take it now, well I can't with 100% assuredness say it was. This has to do with the hebrew meaning, who wrote it, and the fact calendars (and time-measuring devices), such as ours were yet to be made.


Please don't try to fight with me over this (as I know some of you are want to do), if you have a valid point, please say it, WITHOUT mockery or 'you're an idiot pagan!' comments coming out

Thanks!

Sasch

The thing I see with thoughts along this way ('not sure, it could be long, etc') is that it speaks of willing to reconcile the word of God with the preceived interpretation of 'billions of years' that men tell us the universe has existed for. Is it hard, if you accept that God created all, to accept He did it in 6 days? Or is it because long periods allow some other concepts through - such as 'God driven evolution', etc, to explain creation?

So you see, it can be a valid comparison between Creation and Crucifiction ... for both speak of which we will look to, the word of God or the word of man.

 

[Didaskomenos]

For the record: the Word of God is Jesus. The word of man is the Bible. The Bible contains some of the words of God, but the Word, the Doctrine, the Living Testimony is Jesus himself. Without him, the Bible is as useless as trusting in the Book of Mormon.

I'm sure we'd all agree: God used men to write the Bible
I'm sure we'd all agree: God did not use men to create the world
We should all agree then: If we're really afraid of the "word of man", we should be less sure of the Bible than the physical universe for clues as to how he actually made the universe.

 

[seebs]

Why do you need a name? You can always fall back on "I don't know exactly what happened, and I'd rather focus on my relationship with God today than worry about what might have happened thousands of years before Christ."

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

For the record: the Word of God is Jesus. The word of man is the Bible. The Bible contains some of the words of God, but the Word, the Doctrine, the Living Testimony is Jesus himself. Without him, the Bible is as useless as trusting in the Book of Mormon.

I'm sure we'd all agree: God used men to write the Bible
I'm sure we'd all agree: God did not use men to create the world
We should all agree then: If we're really afraid of the "word of man", we should be less sure of the Bible than the physical universe for clues as to how he actually made the universe.

Then how about a quote from Jesus: "If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken..." (John 10:35) I think I will stick with Jesus on this one.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Notice Jesus said "Scripture" not "Scriptures." The word in Greek is a singular, referring to an individual passage. The general term for the Old Testament was hai graphai 'the Scriptures.' He was verifying the truth in that passage he quoted. "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them gods, those to whom the word of God came, and the passage (he graphe) cannot be destroyed..." (Note that Jesus is arguing that people are gods - never hear many sermons about that from fundies!)

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Well, since we cannot pick and choose scriptures, it must mean all scripture.

 

[Asar'el]

For the record: the Word of God is Jesus. The word of man is the Bible. The Bible contains some of the words of God, but the Word, the Doctrine, the Living Testimony is Jesus himself. Without him, the Bible is as useless as trusting in the Book of Mormon.

I'm sure we'd all agree: God used men to write the Bible
I'm sure we'd all agree: God did not use men to create the world
We should all agree then: If we're really afraid of the "word of man", we should be less sure of the Bible than the physical universe for clues as to how he actually made the universe.

For the other record:

The word of God is the Bible; Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

And

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

What we'd agree and should all agree is nonsense, when we don't agree with your definitions in the first place...

I'll be sure of the Bible much more than your opinion of it... I have to word of God (the Bible) and the Holy Spirit (as the Bible declares it!) to teach me about the Living Word (Jesus Christ). You're not really suggesting I should look at the word of man, or I should put the bible on the same level with other books, merely because you say so ?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Well, since we cannot pick and choose scriptures, it must mean all scripture.

Let me get this straight:

We can't pick and choose Scriptures.
Why?
Jesus said one particular scripture was true.
But not all scriptures.
He must mean all, because we can't pick and choose Scriptures.


Circular reasoning at its worst.

 

[Didaskomenos]

For the other record:

The word of God is the Bible; Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

And

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

What we'd agree and should all agree is nonsense, when we don't agree with your definitions in the first place...

I'll be sure of the Bible much more than your opinion of it... I have to word of God (the Bible) and the Holy Spirit (as the Bible declares it!) to teach me about the Living Word (Jesus Christ). You're not really suggesting I should look at the word of man, or I should put the bible on the same level with other books, merely because you say so ?

You know, I wouldn't buck at the use of "word of God" to mean the Bible if it weren't for the next assumption that all the words contained therein are verbatim from God's mouth.Even if that could be claimed based upon the NT's say-so, it would not necessarily hold for the NT, because it was not collected as such until many, many years later; when the NT writers referred to Scripture, all they had was the OT. The OT's use of "word of the Lord" or "word of God" generally concerns revealed truth: it often seems to be referring to the Law of God and other times is referring to the more abstract doctrine of God as he reveals it. The "word of God" is only in a very loose sense what the Bible is: both the OT and the NT are the words concerning God. Calling the Bible the "Book of God" is much better, because "word" in the singular refers to doctrine itself, not the collective works from which we formulate our ideas of doctrine.

God indeed wanted us to have the Bible. He authorized it, but didn't author it. He inspired the men to write, but they wrote it. I believe prophecy by its very nature was probably more thought-for-thought inspired by God than the other parts (and prophecy was what Peter named), but even then, God blowing through different instruments caused different sounds, sounds characterized by the styles, culture, and vocabulary of each prophet.

Listen, who couldn't agree that God made the world without man? Or that God did create the Bible with man? Next, it is man who interprets both "books". So the score is:

The physical universe : man involved 1x (interpretation)
Bible : man involved 2x (production and interpretation)

Is it not logical to use the more direct evidence of creation to tell us how to interpret the less direct evidence?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Let me get this straight:

We can't pick and choose Scriptures.
Why?
Jesus said one particular scripture was true.
But not all scriptures.
He must mean all, because we can't pick and choose Scriptures.


Circular reasoning at its worst.

Then what is true? Just 1 scripture per book? Every other scripture? Every third?

 

[Didaskomenos]

It's all "true"! Just not all of it is literally true. And not all of it is valid for use in the way that you want to use it. You'd like Genesis to tell the scientific, historical facts about the beginnings of the universe. Sorry - it doesn't address that. It's perfectly valid and God wanted us to have it, but not for just any purpose you'd like to use it for. That's why I'm a genericist: I believe in looking at the literary genre, style, and devices that make up the different passages of Scripture. It's important in determining what's to be taken as mythology (Genesis 1-3), history (Acts), apocalyptic imagery (Matthew 24), etc. It's not shooting in the dark. It's working at knowing God and his truth, an effort worth making.

You want the interpretation of Scripture to be perfectly obvious. It's not. God did not set up a paper pope so that you wouldn't need access to your own mind and his Spirit when you are searching for truth.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I have nothing against non literal interpretation. Actually, it would be silly to take the Bible literally at all places.

 

[Asar'el]

Indeed, noone I know of (and certainly not I!) suggests the bible does not contain any symbolism, imagery, or other not-to-be-taken-literal text; however, what I (and others) declare, is that a straight forward reading is sufficient to identify those texts - it is obvious, in other words. And NEVER twist what a straightforward, literal reading suggests because some men disagree with it.

In other words, we hold 'Let God be true, but every man a liar' in regard, and are prepared first to accept what it declares before listening to someone say, 'No, that does not agree with x/y/z (be that science or whatever' - when really what they mean is THEY do not agree with what the Scripture plainly declares. It will take more than man saying "I don't agree that's what it says or means", especially when the argument they put forth is based on man's word.

Regarding the suggestion that God inspired man to write, but not what to write exactly (if I understand the suggestion) ... think on it for a moment and you will see the futility of it. Along the same lines with 'God inspired the original, but did not preserve it' - like saying, He made sure we got it right the first time, but let us stuff it up subsequently...