Hi Everyone!!

[mark kennedy]

I'm still new here and origins theology is a topic that I've never really looked into. Someone I know has brought it up with me personally but I'm completely in the dark on this matter because it simply hasn't mattered to me. I've been a Christian since I was a young child and all that's mattered is my daily walk with Jesus.

Although origins still isn't an issue for me at all, my curiosity has been invoked. I read the full spectrum of beliefs thread, but that doesn't tell me much about what's behind them. Is anyone willing to explain THEIR view to me and explain what theology and science is behind them?

I am NOT interested in hearing why anyone else is wrong. I just wanna know what makes you think that your view is correct both theologically and scientifically.

It would be great if people posting in this thread were just expressing their own views and not ripping into each other. I'm sure there are enough other threads for that.

I'll probably follow up with questions.

Thanks!!!

Hello, welcome to the Origins Theology forum and, my but you have a lot of reps for a newbie . Anyway.

I was drawn into the subject of origins by a desire to study the evidences for the Christian faith. It's a formal study known as Christian Apologetics in case you've never heard of it. I studied things like 'internal, external and bibliographical testing' but found that the topic was not of any great interest beyond Christian scholarship. The Creation/Evolution thing on the other hand was a quick and easy way to start a discussion and/or a full blown debate with very little effort.

The most important theological issue for me was the testimony of the New Testament writers concerning creation in general and Adam in particular. Original sin is a major theological doctrine so human evolution was and is, my central focus. If your interested we can discuss the particulars of chimpanzee/human comparisons and maybe the New Testament witness concerning our origins. Just let me know.

For me the biggest proof is the fact that chimpanzees don't send humans into space, we send them. What is more they are not pushing us to the brink of extinction, we are pushing them. Of course, being poor stewards of God's creation is not reason for boasting but our nearest relative in the evolutionary chain is really not a convincing reason for me to question the clear testimony of Scripture.

With that I'll just say, welcome to the Origins Theology forum and let me know if your interested in pursuing the topic further.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[FrozenOne]

A great example of eisegesis by both of you.

You are clearly reading into scripture your modern views of cosmology.

Where is a single word in those verses that implies a spherical earth?

And what does any of it have to do with evolution?

The Bible does not teach a flat earth. Take this verse.
Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.

Job is saying that above the northern skies is empty space, which we know is true. Likewise there is empty space on the other side if God suspends the earth over nothing.

Many places refer to the arch of the heavens. Now this is not a literal arch, but refering to the "expanse" of the sky. The arch, or dome, of the sky appears to us on earth as being that shape when we compare the sky with the earth's horizons. At sea, they understood the curvature of the earth due to observation of the horizon. They were well accomplished navigators and understood how to navigate by longitude and latitude. Concepts of longitude and latitude can only be understood by assuming a spherical earth. Those who drew up maps later on such as the Piri reis map, drew their information on earlier maps that I believe came from the era just after the flood of Noah. Probably by explorers from Noah's 2 & 3rd generation grandsons.

I'm not saying these verses that imply a spherical earth have anything to do with evolution, rather they back up the creation account of Genesis. We can have a literal creation of 6 days, 24 hour periods, roughly 6000 years ago with it being understood as a spherical earth. As well as a globally flooded spherical earth about 4500 years ago.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not saying these verses that imply a spherical earth have anything to do with evolution, rather they back up the creation account of Genesis. We can have a literal creation of 6 days, 24 hour periods, roughly 6000 years ago with it being understood as a spherical earth. As well as a globally flooded spherical earth about 4500 years ago.

A simple glance at history shows these verses did not imply a spherical earth to anyone until long after science revealed that the earth is spherical.

Just because you come up with ad hoc interpretations to agree with science now doesn't show that was the meaning intended by the writer or understood by his/her audience.

 

[juvenissun]

A simple glance at history shows these verses did not imply a spherical earth to anyone until long after science revealed that the earth is spherical.

Just because you come up with ad hoc interpretations to agree with science now doesn't show that was the meaning intended by the writer or understood by his/her audience.

Could you take them as prophecies? Would that make you feel better in accepting them to be scientifically accurate?

 

[Jase]

Could you take them as prophecies? Would that make you feel better in accepting them to be scientifically accurate?

No, because they aren't intended to be scientifically accurate. They are a reflection of the culture in which the writers lived in, and the knowledge they had based on their time period. A spherical earth was discovered by the Greeks, not the Israelites. The Israelites, Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. all believed in a flat, geocentric earth.

 

[secondtimearound]

Well here is a surprise, the OP asked this not to turn into a debate and for everyone to air their version of the creation account but what has happened? It's awesome how as Christians we respect the wishes of others isn't it?

Anyway, to the OP, here is a thread that offers a different take on the Genesis creation account. You can take both science and the Bible as factual and not have to sacrifice on either end. Personally I still have it under consideration, but this is where I have been going as of late and it is really growing on me.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7643307/

 

[juvenissun]

No, because they aren't intended to be scientifically accurate. They are a reflection of the culture in which the writers lived in, and the knowledge they had based on their time period. A spherical earth was discovered by the Greeks, not the Israelites. The Israelites, Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. all believed in a flat, geocentric earth.

Were they descriptions of what we take it today as science?

If yes, then a prophecy is never intended to be accurate. It is simply a prophecy. But it happened to be scientifically accurate.

What is wrong to say that the prophecy is fulfilled by science?

 

[juvenissun]

Well here is a surprise, the OP asked this not to turn into a debate and for everyone to air their version of the creation account but what has happened? It's awesome how as Christians we respect the wishes of others isn't it?

Anyway, to the OP, here is a thread that offers a different take on the Genesis creation account. You can take both science and the Bible as factual and not have to sacrifice on either end. Personally I still have it under consideration, but this is where I have been going as of late and it is really growing on me.

[COLOR="Blue"]http://www.christianforums.com/t7643307/[/COLOR]

I missed the discussion of that thread. But here is my opinion to your question:

The Garden is a temporary environment which God sets up for human. The Garden and everything in it does not have a meaning of eternity. So, Adam, before sin, is immortal, but is not the same as what we will be. God does not know when will Adam sin. So he has to be immortal. But He knows that Adam will sin.

After Adam sinned, the purpose of the Garden is fulfilled and is closed out.

 

[Keachian]

I missed the discussion of that thread. But here is my opinion to your question:

The Garden is a temporary environment which God sets up for human. The Garden and everything in it does not have a meaning of eternity. So, Adam, before sin, is immortal, but is not the same as what we will be. God does not know when will Adam sin. So he has to be immortal. But He knows that Adam will sin.

After Adam sinned, the purpose of the Garden is fulfilled and is closed out.

I seem to be missing something, I thought the whole idea of the end of revelations was that it did parallel the garden and so we get all sorts of wonderful connotations about the establishment of the Kingdom of God from that, in unimpeded communion with God, unimpeded communion with each other, access to the tree of life, etc.

 

[juvenissun]

I seem to be missing something, I thought the whole idea of the end of revelations was that it did parallel the garden and so we get all sorts of wonderful connotations about the establishment of the Kingdom of God from that, in unimpeded communion with God, unimpeded communion with each other, access to the tree of life, etc.

That is the Heaven, not the Garden. There is only one tree of life in the Garden, but there are many many in the Heaven. I don't know what the Garden is used for since Adam was kicked out.

 

[Keachian]

I don't really see any justification for multiple trees of life in revelation 22, sure it says that it is growing on either side of the bank of the river but it talks of tree singular rather than trees plural

 

[Keachian]

Also its the new Jerusalem, a thoroughly earthly place

 

[juvenissun]

I don't really see any justification for multiple trees of life in revelation 22, sure it says that it is growing on either side of the bank of the river but it talks of tree singular rather than trees plural

Good point. But there are 12 different fruits. I would say at least 12 trees. One "manner" of fruit for each. So singular.

 

[juvenissun]

Also its the new Jerusalem, a thoroughly earthly place

In my picture, the New Jerusalem is something like a neutron star. Definitely not earthly.

 

[Keachian]

In my picture, the New Jerusalem is something like a neutron star. Definitely not earthly.

There's no scriptural basis for this and you expect me to go, well that's alright then, your eschatology is all fine, neither is this a historically orthodox view

 

[Keachian]

Good point. But there are 12 different fruits. I would say at least 12 trees. One "manner" of fruit for each. So singular.

Why would you say that there are at least 12 different trees, does God need to have 12 trees one for each fruit or can his one tree bear 12 different fruit? Who are you to dictate to him what he can and cannot do

 

[Assyrian]

Good point. But there are 12 different fruits. I would say at least 12 trees. One "manner" of fruit for each. So singular.

Grafting.

 

[mark kennedy]

Grafting? I know you can do that with apple trees but the grafted branches have to come from another tree. I wonder if the one in the garden had twelve fruits or if it's some kind of a hybrid. That is, of course, assuming that we are talking about an actual tree.

 

[Assyrian]

I was thinking olive trees and Romans 11
It is certainly the best way to get a single tree bearing different fruit.

 

[juvenissun]

I was thinking olive trees and Romans 11
It is certainly the best way to get a single tree bearing different fruit.

Com'n, keep it simple.
There is no modification of anything needed in the Heaven.