How long has man been created.

[gluadys]

Exactly,

They ignore the deposition rates of the rock around the fossils too.

I once heard on Christian radio that geologist do not know where the “soil” went from the Grand Canyon. This disturbed me so much I wrote them and asked where they are getting their data.

What do you mean by paradox?

Paradox is a self-contradiction.

YEC begins with the premise that the default interpretation of the scripture is literal history and symbol is only to be considered when it is tagged as such very obviously. (Or when they have already rejected the literal meaning.)

So it follows that scripture ought to agree with science and vice versa.
But then to make it agree with science when it obviously doesn't they generate fantastic non-scientific explanations to reconcile scientific data with a supposedly science-compatible scripture.

 

[mpok1519]

which is why science much better explains life.

 

[An Arch Angel]

Paradox is a self-contradiction.

YEC begins with the premise that the default interpretation of the scripture is literal history and symbol is only to be considered when it is tagged as such very obviously. (Or when they have already rejected the literal meaning.)

So it follows that scripture ought to agree with science and vice versa.
But then to make it agree with science when it obviously doesn't they generate fantastic non-scientific explanations to reconcile scientific data with a supposedly science-compatible scripture.

Ty

Is there any YEC that do not take the bible literally?
How do YEC account for other creation stories?

 

[gluadys]

Ty

Is there any YEC that do not take the bible literally?
How do YEC account for other creation stories?

There is no one who takes the bible literally. YECs just think they do. An obvious example is that, except for a very small fringe, they do not take literally any passage that speaks of the sun moving across the sky or the earth standing still. Yet there is no reason not to take these passages literally other than to accept the modern scientific understanding of the solar system.

Allowing modern astronomy to override a literal meaning while rejecting such an override by modern geology and physics is an inconsistent and illogical use of a "literal" hermeneutic.

As I see it, the notion "literal" has become an idol. So much so that the very meaning of "literal" has become distorted. Any interpretation consistent with YEC is considered "literal" even when it is not. This includes the non-literal readings of ancient cosmology, the non-literal reading of Genesis 2 to reconcile it with the chronology of Genesis 1, the non-literal identification of Behemoth and Leviathan with dinosaurs (though neither one could possibly be a dinosaur) and all the pseudo-science invented to make literal readings of scripture sound superficially scientific.

 

[Mallon]

There is no one who takes the bible literally. YECs just think they do. An obvious example is that, except for a very small fringe, they do not take literally any passage that speaks of the sun moving across the sky or the earth standing still. Yet there is no reason not to take these passages literally other than to accept the modern scientific understanding of the solar system.

Allowing modern astronomy to override a literal meaning while rejecting such an override by modern geology and physics is an inconsistent and illogical use of a "literal" hermeneutic.

As I see it, the notion "literal" has become an idol. So much so that the very meaning of "literal" has become distorted. Any interpretation consistent with YEC is considered "literal" even when it is not. This includes the non-literal readings of ancient cosmology, the non-literal reading of Genesis 2 to reconcile it with the chronology of Genesis 1, the non-literal identification of Behemoth and Leviathan with dinosaurs (though neither one could possibly be a dinosaur) and all the pseudo-science invented to make literal readings of scripture sound superficially scientific.

It's an amazing thing, isn't it?
Another thing I find notable among fundamentalist neocreationists is the refusal to recognize the role of interpretation in understanding the Bible, regardless of whether a passage be read literally or figuratively. Take, for example, the words of Gary Parker from the RATE project:

Our job is not to interpret the Bible – we take it as it is. Interpretation means to take the words and make them mean something different.

What hubris to presume that we, as fallible humans, have unfettered access to the true meaning of Scripture! Almost as though they think the meaning comes simply by osmosis.

 

[An Arch Angel]

It's an amazing thing, isn't it?
Another thing I find notable among fundamentalist neocreationists is the refusal to recognize the role of interpretation in understanding the Bible, regardless of whether a passage be read literally or figuratively. Take, for example, the words of Gary Parker from the RATE project:

Our job is not to interpret the Bible – we take it as it is. Interpretation means to take the words and make them mean something different.

What hubris to presume that we, as fallible humans, have unfettered access to the true meaning of Scripture! Almost as though they think the meaning comes simply by osmosis.

This is correct,

I call it filtering. What ever the universe will to say to us HAS to be filtered through the human brain. The brain/mind, being one in the same, is subject to the person’s experiences and/or brain state. Even pyridine shifts only reconfigure the brain to a new state and the person is then subject to that state.

An infinite amount of knowledge filtered through the human brain gets disordered or flat out misunderstood. For example, my spiritual experience was filtered through an atheist/scientist brain/mind. The interpretations I have are different then a young mother of three. It is just the way it is, not write or wrong.

The brain will makes sense of the world around it any way it can. I, because of my make-up will interprate events using the scientific method and life experiences. An older male accountant’s brain will make use of the experience and knowledge that one picks up through life with that type of job and life style. If a person doesn’t understand the scientific processes they have no reason to think it any more valid then their own.

I do not understand the “lock” the bible has on people. They are locked so tightly that they do not see the ego holding onto this world through a book that was meant to show us that this world should not be our primary focus. Who care if the world god made happened the way the evidence suggest, that is not the point of the bible.

 

[gluadys]

It's an amazing thing, isn't it?
Another thing I find notable among fundamentalist neocreationists is the refusal to recognize the role of interpretation in understanding the Bible, regardless of whether a passage be read literally or figuratively. Take, for example, the words of Gary Parker from the RATE project:

Our job is not to interpret the Bible – we take it as it is. Interpretation means to take the words and make them mean something different.

Of course, that description of interpretation is an out-and-out lie as any quick reference to a dictionary will attest. Interpretation is not at all about making words mean something different. Dictionaries define interpretation as explaining or making sense of something, or figuring out the significance of something. It doesn't apply only to words. One example given was "I interpreted his smile as agreement."

A literal reading is one way of making sense of a passage of scripture. A figurative reading is another way of making sense of a passage of scripture.

Both are interpretations, and the decision to go with a literal meaning as the most relevant meaning is an interpretive decision.

In particular the decision to treat a literal reading as "science" or "history" in the teeth of voluminous evidence that this is not a correct reading is both an interpretation and a deliberate theological decision to set one's devotion to a hermeneutic above a genuine seeking out of the meaning of scripture in light of the general revelation of creation and ordinary common sense.

It is a form of hubris rooted in deception and self-deception, of which Parker's totally incorrect definition of "interpretation" is an egregious example.


Another aspect of this controversy on interpretation is that "literal" from a non-evolutionary creationist standpoint does not mean simply "the plain meaning of the words". It goes beyond that to hold that the plain meaning of the words concords with history/science (concordism--as you have said many times). It means that what "really happened as a historical event" is conveyed in the literal terms of the narrative.

This is really a different idea than anything to do with the meaning of the words, but it gets conflated with it. That is why young-earth creationists conceive any old-earth interpretation of Genesis as necessarily changing the meaning of "day".

But when I read Genesis 1:1-2:3 I don't have to change the meaning of "day". I can and do read this passage verse-by-verse as literally as any YEC. I don't change the meaning of the words at all--as Parker contends. What I don't do is take the second step and insist that the narrative conveys what "really [i.e. historically and scientifically] happened when God created the universe". Rather it conveys the importance of the theology of monotheism, creation, humanity and sabbath--teachings that transcend any particular scientific information about the process or timing of creation.

 

[Mallon]

gluadys, can you recommend any good books where I can read more about the history and development of the concordist hermeneutic? Once my PhD candidacy is over at the end of the summer, I plan to sit down and catch up on some non-scientific literature (including the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind).

 

[LightSeaker]

But when I read Genesis 1:1-2:3 I don't have to change the meaning of "day". I can and do read this passage verse-by-verse as literally as any YEC. I don't change the meaning of the words at all--as Parker contends. What I don't do is take the second step and insist that the narrative conveys what "really [i.e. historically and scientifically] happened when God created the universe". Rather it conveys the importance of the theology of monotheism, creation, humanity and sabbath--teachings that transcend any particular scientific information about the process or timing of creation.

Exactly!!! Thank you!!!
The Bible is about man's relationship with God. It is not a science book.

.

 

[Blue sapphire]

Of course, that description of interpretation is an out-and-out lie as any quick reference to a dictionary will attest. Interpretation is not at all about making words mean something different. Dictionaries define interpretation as explaining or making sense of something, or figuring out the significance of something. It doesn't apply only to words. One example given was "I interpreted his smile as agreement."

A literal reading is one way of making sense of a passage of scripture. A figurative reading is another way of making sense of a passage of scripture.

Both are interpretations, and the decision to go with a literal meaning as the most relevant meaning is an interpretive decision.

In particular the decision to treat a literal reading as "science" or "history" in the teeth of voluminous evidence that this is not a correct reading is both an interpretation and a deliberate theological decision to set one's devotion to a hermeneutic above a genuine seeking out of the meaning of scripture in light of the general revelation of creation and ordinary common sense.

It is a form of hubris rooted in deception and self-deception, of which Parker's totally incorrect definition of "interpretation" is an egregious example.


Another aspect of this controversy on interpretation is that "literal" from a non-evolutionary creationist standpoint does not mean simply "the plain meaning of the words". It goes beyond that to hold that the plain meaning of the words concords with history/science (concordism--as you have said many times). It means that what "really happened as a historical event" is conveyed in the literal terms of the narrative.

This is really a different idea than anything to do with the meaning of the words, but it gets conflated with it. That is why young-earth creationists conceive any old-earth interpretation of Genesis as necessarily changing the meaning of "day".

But when I read Genesis 1:1-2:3 I don't have to change the meaning of "day". I can and do read this passage verse-by-verse as literally as any YEC. I don't change the meaning of the words at all--as Parker contends. What I don't do is take the second step and insist that the narrative conveys what "really [i.e. historically and scientifically] happened when God created the universe". Rather it conveys the importance of the theology of monotheism, creation, humanity and sabbath--teachings that transcend any particular scientific information about the process or timing of creation.

So to answer my question....what are you saying. How long according to the Bible has man (from Adam) been created.

Please give some detail.

 

[gluadys]

So to answer my question....what are you saying. How long according to the Bible has man (from Adam) been created.

Please give some detail.

The bible doesn't give a historical date.

If you treat it like a science book and think of Adam as a single individual with a historical existence, Bishop Ussher's dates are as good as any.

But it would fit better with the nature of the biblical creation narratives to place them in what the Australian aborigines call the Dreamtime. In that case it is meaningless to assign a date to Adam's creation. Adam (ha-adam in Hebrew) is not a man. He is humanity. He doesn't live in a particular time, but in all times that humanity exists.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys, can you recommend any good books where I can read more about the history and development of the concordist hermeneutic? Once my PhD candidacy is over at the end of the summer, I plan to sit down and catch up on some non-scientific literature (including the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind).

I hesitate to recommend books I have not yet read, even when they come highly recommended, but I expect the best is Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God. (It is sitting in my living-room waiting its turn.)

It is basically about the rise of fundamentalism--both Christian and Muslim I think--but I don't know how deeply she probes the history.

David Livingstone in Darwin's Forgotten Defenders has a bit about the impact of the controversy over slavery in the US. 19th century defenders of slavery could rely on specific biblical texts to press their case that slavery was a natural social institution in no way incompatible with a Christian social order, whereas the abolitionists had to appeal to a meta-textual understanding of scripture from which one could infer that it was not.

The Civil War settled the slavery issue, but did not dislodge the habitual way communities read scripture.

But I think the key historic roots go back to the era of Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment. I happen to have this link www.meta-library.net set at a presentation by Ken Miller given at a conference, some years ago, called Perspectives on Evolution. But in the Topic list on the right, near the top, is a presentation by John Brook on the changing nature of the relation between science and religion--which of course is much more nuanced and complex than the stereotypes. (His second presentation, which focuses on Darwin's own changing thoughts on religion is very interesting too.) he notes the coincidence of the Copernican revolution with the Protestant Reformation and the consequent shift in the Catholic Church from a tolerance for many interpretations--usually allegorical--to a focus on the one correct interpretation of scripture.

The Reformation itself led, for various reasons, to elevating the common sense meaning of scripture. And the rise of a scientific method of discovering unique truth also impacted scriptural studies. The intervening centuries saw the development of Natural Theology which attempted to infer religious knowledge from science and spurred the interest of clergy in scientific activities. The clerical scientist became a prominent figure in that era and it was inevitable that the methods of science rubbed off on their theology.

I don't know if Armstrong deals with all of this or not, or if she only treats more recent developments. In the latter case the book you are looking for may need to be written yet.

 

[mpok1519]

yes, the split in churches Christianity has always had innately means that the interpretation of scripture will always change and shift.

there is no single one meaning behind it when it has multiple meanings and interpretive contradiction.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks kindly, gluadys. I'll look into your recommendations. They all sound more interesting than what I'm reading right now (Biometry).

 

[Blue sapphire]

The bible doesn't give a historical date.

If you treat it like a science book and think of Adam as a single individual with a historical existence, Bishop Ussher's dates are as good as any.

But it would fit better with the nature of the biblical creation narratives to place them in what the Australian aborigines call the Dreamtime. In that case it is meaningless to assign a date to Adam's creation. Adam (ha-adam in Hebrew) is not a man. He is humanity. He doesn't live in a particular time, but in all times that humanity exists.

So in Genesis 5:1-32. When the Bible says...."this is the history of the descendants of Adam...... when Adam was 130 years old, his son Seth was born"......and so on down to Noah.....where years can be counted from Adam to the flood......how do you interpret this?

 

[gluadys]

So in Genesis 5:1-32. When the Bible says...."this is the history of the descendants of Adam...... when Adam was 130 years old, his son Seth was born"......and so on down to Noah.....where years can be counted from Adam to the flood......how do you interpret this?

The story reads as it reads. The question is whether these years have any place in history book. In the Mesopotamian culture, of which the Hebrew culture was a part, genealogies---often with lifetimes much longer than those of Genesis---were quite common. We are not sure exactly what the cultural significance of such genealogies were though it may have had something to do with according symbolic degrees of honour on the person named.

Typically the further removed from the present, the longer the life-time attributed to them. This is not found in the bible only, but in Egyptian and Sumerian records as well.

If you want to treat the biblical years as historical, there is no basis for treating the others as non-historical.

 

[Blue sapphire]

The story reads as it reads.

So Adam was a man....who was created....who had children as written in Gen 5.

How does this gel with what you said earlier?

I quote,

Adam (ha-adam in Hebrew) is not a man. He is humanity. He doesn't live in a particular time, but in all times that humanity exists.

__________________

.

 

[mpok1519]

120,000 years has homo sapien walked this earth.

could be longer.

 

[Blue sapphire]

120,000 years has homo sapien walked this earth.

could be longer.

And what role does Scripture have in this conclusion.

 

[gluadys]

.So Adam was a man....who was created....who had children as written in Gen 5.

How does this gel with what you said earlier?

In English, "Man" is not "a man". And "Woman" is not any particular woman. Right?

In Hebrew 'ha-adam' (the word used all through Genesis 1-3) means "the man" and can have at least three different meanings:
1. a particular designated man "the man standing there"
2. Man (= Humanity) "Man is mortal"
3. a personification in which an individual (meaning 1) represents all humanity (meaning 2) e.g. the Everyman character in medieval dramas.

When meaning 3 is intended, it has some of the qualities of the two other meanings. Because 'ha-adam' is a character represented as an individual, he is presented as doing things individuals do--caring for a garden, naming animals, taking a wife, eating forbidden fruit, having children. But the character does all these things as a representative of all humanity--since these are all patterns of human behaviour in all times. So what the 'ha-adam' does as an individual character is intended to tell us not about a person who lived a long time ago, but about our humanity here and now and through all time.


The literal interpretation of Genesis 2 says that only the first meaning above applies and 'ha-adam' refers only to a particular person who lived many thousands of years ago.

But scripture does not tell us which way to interpret 'ha-adam'. That is up to the reader to decide.