Hummingbirds Disprove Creationism

[The Barbarian]

If you study biblical literature, which I have a degree in by the way, you will note that parables and allegories all have certain literature signatures.

Nope. In fact, there are places where the Bible points out that stories in Genesis are not literal.

NONE of the passages in the New Testament even hint at allegory. NONE. They all read and indicate that the writer and speakers speak of actual events not allegory. Sorry, but you are just flat wrong there.

Many people have convinced themselves so. But your belief is false:

Galatians 4:22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.


24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.


25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

As you now see, your belief is directly refuted by God's word.

But it is the typical liberal mantra to proclaim such without any actual evidence of that. Please quote me some scriptures that indicate that Jesus and Paul spoke of the events in Genesis as allegory.

See above.

Show me where Jesus said it was allegory.

Show me where Jesus said the Good Samaritan was an allegory.

Show me where Paul said it was allegory.

See above. It's a big task to know everything in Scripture. I still find myself learning new things as I continue. I started on the task 59 years ago, and I still have things to learn. No doubt a college degree would have been a help. But it doesn't substitute for study and a prayerful reading.

Again, Augustine is not the only church father out there is he?

That's the point. He wrote The Literal Reading of Genesis, which was widely published, and yet not one other Christian theologian called him out on it.

 

[rjs330]

Nope. In fact, there are places where the Bible points out that stories in Genesis are not literal.



Many people have convinced themselves so. But your belief is false:

Galatians 4:22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.


24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.


25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

As you now see, your belief is directly refuted by God's word.



See above.



Show me where Jesus said the Good Samaritan was an allegory.



See above. It's a big task to know everything in Scripture. I still find myself learning new things as I continue. I started on the task 59 years ago, and I still have things to learn. No doubt a college degree would have been a help. But it doesn't substitute for study and a prayerful reading.



That's the point. He wrote The Literal Reading of Genesis, which was widely published, and yet not one other Christian theologian called him out on it.

You completely twist the meaning here of the passage to fit a modern definition you want and completely disregard context. Wow just unbelievable. If your claim is that the story of The two sons are allegory meaning it never really happened its a fictional story to make a point then you have just tossed out the history of Israel. Abraham Issac and Jacob are all fake people too apparently and none of what happened to them was real.

What real hermeneutics and proper exigesis of this passage will show you is that Paul was using an interpretation of historical events. He applies an allegorical meaning to an actual event. Paul is using the actual real live people (well dead at that point) to represent the covenant relationship. His point is not that they did not exist or the births were not real but a story to represent something else. There is a figurative representation or and illustration that can be gleaned from an actual event. There is the historical meaning which is the fact of the event and a second meaning or an application or allegory to be gleaned from the event.

Apply this to Genesis creation and we have an actual historical event event that occurred where what occurred is true in every sense. And another picture can be gleaned from the event.

In no way does Paul indicate by anything he wrote that denies the actual historical truth of the OT.

There is a clear distinction between allegory and allegorical interpretation. That is where you are getting confused.

The language and context of the Good Samaritan parable is how we know it's a parable and to a historical event. It's an illustration of a point Jesus is making. Jesus told stories all the time to illustrate and the context and language makes it clear. If you need further education on that I suggest checking out
https://Bible.org/series page/introduction-parables

There are also a lot of biblical resources at your local Bible bookstore or online that can help as well.

As I said I have a degree in Bible Literature and understand this stuff pretty well.

And others did contradict Augustine. Maybe not by name but by belief. Barnabas, Basil to name a couple. And as I pointed out.

There is still zero evidence that Jesus or the apostles believed that Genesis was not history and was only a spiritual story.

 

[The Barbarian]

You completely twist the meaning here of the passage to fit a modern definition you want and completely disregard context.

St. Augustine could have had no such motives. Interpreting Genesis as a literal history is a very modern idea.

If your claim is that the story of The two sons are allegory meaning it never really happened its a fictional story to make a point then you have just tossed out the history of Israel. Abraham Issac and Jacob are all fake people too apparently and none of what happened to them was real.

It's what Paul said. You really should take it up with God; it's his book. Now I'm sure that "real hermeneutics and proper exigesis" could find a way around that verse, but that would be doing the very thing that is being complained about. Why not just accept it as it is?

The language and context of the Good Samaritan parable is how we know it's a parable and to a historical event. It's an illustration of a point Jesus is making. Jesus told stories all the time to illustrate and the context and language makes it clear.

So Jesus could do this, but the Bible cannot? I don't think so.

And others did contradict Augustine. Maybe not by name but by belief.

If they did, they kept it quiet; no one contradicted him. Obviously, there was nothing unusual in Augustine's day in recognizing that the creation story wasn't a literal history.

There is still zero evidence that Jesus or the apostles believed that Genesis was a literal history.

 

[rjs330]

St. Augustine could have had no such motives. Interpreting Genesis as a literal history is a very modern idea.



It's what Paul said. You really should take it up with God; it's his book. Now I'm sure that "real hermeneutics and proper exigesis" could find a way around that verse, but that would be doing the very thing that is being complained about. Why not just accept it as it is?



So Jesus could do this, but the Bible cannot? I don't think so.



If they did, they kept it quiet; no one contradicted him. Obviously, there was nothing unusual in Augustine's day in recognizing that the creation story wasn't a literal history.

There is still zero evidence that Jesus or the apostles believed that Genesis was a literal history.

It not a modern idea and I've given you links to prove that. It's apparent you have no interest in the evidence I've presented. You are entitled to your decision but to make a claim that is false and proven to be false is not good my friend.

While I fully agree that there are people who did not believe Genesis to be literal I just think they are wrong and can present evidence as to why I believe that way. Meanwhile you refuse to admit that there were those that believed it was literal. And you also fail to show scriptures that portray Genesis as a made up story. No one on your side can do that. The twisting of Galations while not understanding of scholarship showing how Paul was not saying what you claim is inexcusable. I think I am done with the conversation not because I'm angry. I'm done because it's does no good to discuss these things with someone who cannot back up their claims with solid scriptural hermeneutics and one who refuses to admit that there are church fathers who believed in the literal Genesis.

 

[rjs330]

For those than think literal creation is a new thing let me quote Barnabas one of the earliest fathers.

The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2

 

[Dale]

It might be interesting to note that the majority of church fathers believed in the literal Genesis. Even Augustine didn't adhere to old earth which is required for evolution. He may have had an issue with the literal six days but not in the young earth. So to use Augustine as a support for evolutionary teaching is not correct. The earliest fathers believed in the literalist interpretation of Genesis. Evolution from a common ancestor is false and unsupported by Scripture. And using the church fathers to support it is disingenuous at best.

ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers

It doesn't matter what the church fathers believed about the age of the Earth because they did not have the scientific evidence that we have today. They weren't ignoring the evidence, as modern creationists do, it had not been discovered yet.

 

[Dale]

But how do you know that except from Genesis. Genesis is the book that tells us where we came from. Paul tells us that as well as the genealogies listed in the New and Old Testaments.

You are right in that our Christianity is not dependent upon literal or non literal Genesis. what is at stake is not salvation. What is at stake is whether we give ourselves the power to decide what is true and what is not in Scripture. It also empowers the athiests and skeptic. Why? Because they use exactly the same thoughts to say the Bible is not reliable. Therefore they do not have to believe or trust it. And we give them the ammo for the gun they point at us. They skoff at Scripture and use the very arguments against us. I can't tell you how many times I've heard about the unreliability of Scripture and as evidence they point out "even Christians don't believe in it.". If we don't believe why should they.

Experience shows that it's the other way around when it comes to belief in creationism. People are leaving Christianity all the time because creationism doesn't make sense. Fundamentalist ministers make it worse when they say that there is nothing between creationism and atheism. Yes, I have heard this from the pulpit.

The only way that anyone can be a creationist is if they have no interest in the physical world. When anyone develops an interest in what we know about the physical world, creationism falls apart. If you are a creationist, you apparently don't care what is objectively true outside a religious context. However, if your children develop an interest in the physical world, they can't be creationists. They may leave Christianity as a result.

I have talked to people who left Christianity because creationsim didn't make sense. Or you could say that they left Christianity when they found out that too many Christians won't listen to solid evidence. I have talked to at least one person who grew up believing that creationism and Christianity are the same. When she reached college she found out that creationism is absurd. After a year of intense conflict, she finally made the transition to being a non-creationist Christian.

I know this from experience, but surveys show the same thing. People are leaving Christianity because Christians have a reputation for not listening to the facts.

 

[rjs330]

Experience shows that it's the other way around when it comes to belief in creationism. People are leaving Christianity all the time because creationism doesn't make sense. Fundamentalist ministers make it worse when they say that there is nothing between creationism and atheism. Yes, I have heard this from the pulpit.

The only way that anyone can be a creationist is if they have no interest in the physical world. When anyone develops an interest in what we know about the physical world, creationism falls apart. If you are a creationist, you apparently don't care what is objectively true outside a religious context. However, if your children develop an interest in the physical world, they can't be creationists. They may leave Christianity as a result.

I have talked to people who left Christianity because creationsim didn't make sense. Or you could say that they left Christianity when they found out that too many Christians won't listen to solid evidence. I have talked to at least one person who grew up believing that creationism and Christianity are the same. When she reached college she found out that creationism is absurd. After a year of intense conflict, she finally made the transition to being a non-creationist Christian.

I know this from experience, but surveys show the same thing. People are leaving Christianity because Christians have a reputation for not listening to the facts.

If people are leaving Christianity because of creationism then they were the kind of people who Jesus spoke of in the sower and seed parable.

There are many scriptures that speak of people falling away from the faith for a number of different reasons. To blame scriptural teaching of creation for the reason of their leaving the faith is minimizing the truth. The truth is they left the faith because they had no strength of faith. They followed worldly teaching placing the word of the world and worldly virtues and passions and knowledge above the word of God. Many scriptures warn us away from worldly wisdom. These people are spoken of in Scripture. Jeremiah says Thus says the Lord Curses is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength whose heart turns away from the Lord"

Jude says In the last time there will be scoffers following their own ungodly passions it is these that cause divisions, worldly people devoid of the spirit.

Hebrews says Take care brothers lest there be any of you and evil unbelieving heart leading you away from Christ

I John says They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would have continued with us. But they went out that it might be plain they are not of us.

If one is falling away because they believe in evolution over creation they were not of us and they have committed apostacy because they have been taken captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition according to the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ.

Jesus and the apostles taught that creation was literal as well as Moses. Falling away because of that is shows their own lack of faith.

 

[rjs330]

It doesn't matter what the church fathers believed about the age of the Earth because they did not have the scientific evidence that we have today. They weren't ignoring the evidence, as modern creationists do, it had not been discovered yet.

If that is true then why do some continually want to point to a couple church fathers as a justification why those that believe creationism are wrong cause after all the church fathers didn't believe in literal creation? They are also used to say creationism is a new thing. It's actually baloney.

I agree with you by the way. What the fathers believed whether literal creation or not doesn't really matter. What the Bible says is what matters. The scientific evidence for evolution is not real evidence. Evolution is an assumption. It cannot be proven or tested or reproduced. I am talking about the evolution that teaches that all things came from a common ancestor and evolved over millions of years into everything that now exists. It's bunk and it is anti Scripture.

The Bible is clear and we need to trust it not the wisdom of man.

 

[Dale]

Barbarian asks:
Why not just accept it as the evidence He left for us tells us it is? That would be perfectly in accord with scripture, and would mean that He isn't deceptive.



Yes. My point. When St. Augustine wrote "The Literal Meaning of Genesis", he pointed out that reading it as a literal history would produce all sorts of contradictions. The literal reading is that it is a parable.

As with EO Christians, the Roman Catholic Church does not require one to accept Genesis as a literal history or as a parable.

And for a Christian, it really shouldn't matter to one's faith. It's just not something that makes a difference.

And reading Genesis as a parable does not rule out the fact that we are descended from a single pair of humans.

Hmm... You didn't read the article did you? Let me quote Augustine from his later work.

The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”1

Note he said this we must believe without hesitation. He also said that the earth was 6000 years old.

Liberal biblical scholars need to brush up on their church history not to mention the scriptures themselves.

We're their some that believed in old earth? Sure. But the majority did not. Evolution requires old earth. The earliest fathers did not believe that. In fact putting such stock in the church fathers over what Jesus and the apostles taught is simply stating that a few of the fathers knew better than Jesus or the apostles. It doesn't hold water.

Now I will say this. The age of the earth could be very old. God created the heavens and the earth. We do not have any idea scripturally how long the earth hung around before God began the creation process of life.

Thanks for bringing Augustine's Literal Meaning of Genesis to my attention.

 

[Dale]

If people are leaving Christianity because of creationism then they were the kind of people who Jesus spoke of in the sower and seed parable.

There are many scriptures that speak of people falling away from the faith for a number of different reasons. To blame scriptural teaching of creation for the reason of their leaving the faith is minimizing the truth. The truth is they left the faith because they had no strength of faith. They followed worldly teaching placing the word of the world and worldly virtues and passions and knowledge above the word of God. Many scriptures warn us away from worldly wisdom. These people are spoken of in Scripture. Jeremiah says Thus says the Lord Curses is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength whose heart turns away from the Lord"

Jude says In the last time there will be scoffers following their own ungodly passions it is these that cause divisions, worldly people devoid of the spirit.

Hebrews says Take care brothers lest there be any of you and evil unbelieving heart leading you away from Christ

I John says They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would have continued with us. But they went out that it might be plain they are not of us.

If one is falling away because they believe in evolution over creation they were not of us and they have committed apostacy because they have been taken captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition according to the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ.

Jesus and the apostles taught that creation was literal as well as Moses. Falling away because of that is shows their own lack of faith.

Rjs in post #248: << To blame scriptural teaching of creation for the reason of their leaving the faith is minimizing the truth. >>



You are assuming that creationists have the right interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis. I don't believe that they do. Take Genesis One. What is the six days of creation about?

I certainly agree that God created the heavens and the earth. It's good to remember where we came from. Yet even creationists find the chapter confusing. I've talked to one who was disturbed because Genesis One doesn't mention God creating ocean plants, or underwater plants. I have talked to another who was baffled because plants are created before the sun. How do plants thrive without the sun? Science isn't causing these people to be confused. They can't make sense out of their own doctrine.

Genesis One was never intended to list everything that God created. No one could.

What did Genesis One mean in the context of the time? What did it mean to the original audience? The Jews were surrounded by pagans, by Babylonian paganism, worshipers of Marduk and Baal. Pagans were idolaters, of course. The real meaning of the six days of creation is that the sun, moon, stars, winds and seas were things made by the one true God. That is, they are not beings worthy of worship.

Is the first chapter of Genesis the foundation of all that follows? It may be, but not in the way that creationists think. The true meaning of Genesis One is monotheism: Do not worship the sun, the moon, or anything else except the Most High God.

God never told us to stop looking at the natural world. Some parts of the Bible do show curiosity about animals and nature in general.

 

[rjs330]

It shouldn't be that hard. You actually hit on the answer for those that wonder. God didn't list every plant animal gas or molicule he created. He just said he created all things.

And as far as plants and light and the sun etc is concerned does it notake perfect sense that God could create all things by his power and sustain it for whatever time is necessary?

The purpose of Genesis is clear. To show there is a God and he created everything in six days by his mighty power.

The writing was not only meant for those at the time, but for all generations to come from that moment until the end of time. For all Scripture is given for instruction. Not just instruction to a pagan or Jew, but for all people of all time. People always wonder where we came from and where are we going. The Bible tells us the truth on where we came from and how God did it and what God's plans for us are. Where do we go when we die. It is explained. All truth that matters is contained within Scripture.