i am a creationist... but not strictly

[DamianWarS]

I am a creationist at heart whereby I believe the creation account in genesis litterally happened how it says it happened. However lately I have entertained a more evolutionist approach to genesis. I may never strictly say I am one way or another but I also have come to a point where I recognize other perspectives.

I suppose my biggest objections to adopting a more symbolic approach to genesis is where I draw the line. It seems clear that genesis does have literal accounts so if it also has symbolic accounts then were I do I make those distinctions? Other texts in the bible when referring back to these alleged symbolic accounts do not make this choice any easier so this general idea of a literal account seems to be more widely accepted through biblical times and today. I will admit to more of a "I don't know" approach with a bias to the literal account.

But assuming the account in genesis is symbolic and humans did evolve from single cell organisms or "goo" I am curious to know how the symbolism is defined in respect to things like the fall of man, the snake, the garden of eden, the tree life and the tree of knowledge, etc....

I have done no research but off of the top of my head I could see the fall of man to represent the evolution of man to a point where man can discern between right and wrong and their behaviors reflect their choice in what direct they wanted to go.

The eating of the apple is the moment or time period this happened. This is why adam and eve were ashamed of their nakedness because of their nakedness now turned into a sins of sexual lusts and desires instead of simple animals without clothes acting on whatever instinct they had. Perhaps the garden of Eden represents a time where evolution was rampant and out of control.

God was concerned for adam and eve to take the fruit of the tree of life because he did not want man to become like God himself and then removed them from the garden of eden. This could reflect that man has reached its fullness of evolution and God has now stopped the process of man evolving further. There was no instruction to not eat of the tree of life in the garden it was just the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life could represent evolution and something man partook of while in the garden. But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is when men reached the climax of their evolution now being able to understand what is good and evil. Man no longer can eat of the tree of life may mean man can no longer evolve any further.

With the account that eve was deceived by the snake and then gave the fruit to adam and also the realization of their nakedness may suggests a sin of sexual nature maybe not as one act but instead a time period where sex makes a shift into acts of lusts, desires and passions over procreation and instinct.

These are just things I can think of at the top of my head. By I am curious to know are there any popular interpretations of the symbols if they are in fact symbols?

 

[Mallon]

You're not alone with your questions, Damian. Check out the Biologos website for answers/discussions that you might find enlightening:

The BioLogos Forum

 

[Papias]

.....and some of your solutions are the same ones that Bible scholars and theologians have come up with.

I can give you short, hopefully clear answers, and then suggest you discuss this with other Christians, with whom you can discuss this as much as you’d like. There are many theistic evolution answers to these questions, just as there are creationist answers, depending on the person and denomination. However, I’ll give you an answer that you’ll find to at least be common, if not exclusive.

The Garden: The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for the natural world before humans became fully conscious/able to think. It did not happen as a literal, single location “garden”, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones (37) is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies. Just a obvious metaphors are mixed into books like Ez (and esp the song of solomon) along with non- metaphors, it is unsurprising that Genesis has literal and non-literal things mixed in different areas.

The fall: The fall of man happened when man evolved enough mental capacity to make rational decisions, and decided to rebel against God. The consequences of alienation from God are the same. Note that a literal reading has the same issue over exactly “when” Adam became rational. Was it sometime during the molding process, or sometime during his existence before the fruit incident, or sometime during the “his eyes were opened” process, or what?

The Flood: The flood is a metaphor describing God’s sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It did not happen as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. Jesus often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables 2000 years ago, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

The geneologies in Genesis: These are figurative, like Ezekiel’s army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons – not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph’s time to the unrealistic ~2 million Jews at the Exodus.

All these are the opinions of many Bible scholars, and theologians like the Pope and many Protestant theologians, not just the opinions of laypeople.



I hope those are a start. Finding out how God's word, correctly interpreted, matches the real evidence science gives us about the real world can be very fulfilling spiritually. Enjoy!


Papias

 

[rcorlew]

<snip>
The geneologies in Genesis: These are figurative, like Ezekiel’s army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons – not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph’s time to the unrealistic ~2 million Jews at the Exodus.
Papias

OK, so I decided to see if it possible to get to 2 million people in just 400 years so I devised a hypothesis:

All of Joseph's family arrived, each with his household and servants
The total number of people would have numbered 100
The average age of reproduction success is 20
Each person would have 2 offspring (4 per couple)
There would be 20 possible reproductive generations in 400 years

The result:

At the end of 16 reproductive generations the total population could be 6,553,600

The interpretation:

It is likely that in 400 years an original population of 100 could result in 2 million offspring.

 

[Greg1234]

I hope those are a start. Finding out how God's word, correctly interpreted, matches the real evidence science gives us about the real world can be very fulfilling spiritually. Enjoy!


Papias

When texts tell you that cars were created, and tests confirm that a bicycle cannot turn into a car, ignoring the evidence and lining up pictures of cars to compare them does not spawn the need for an alternate interpretation. There has always been the interpretation. It has nothing to do with Darwinism. And this is the one confirmed by science.

 

[matthewgar]

When texts tell you that cars were created, and tests confirm that a bicycle cannot turn into a car, ignoring the evidence and lining up pictures of cars to compare them does not spawn the need for an alternate interpretation. There has always been the interpretation. It has nothing to do with Darwinism. And this is the one confirmed by science.

So yet again we have a creationist that think cars reproduce sexually, man do you guys ever learn basic biology?

 

[Papias]

rcorlew wrote:

All of Joseph's family arrived, each with his household and servants
The total number of people would have numbered 100
The average age of reproduction success is 20
Each person would have 2 offspring (4 per couple)
There would be 20 possible reproductive generations in 400 years

The result:

At the end of 16 reproductive generations the total population could be 6,553,600

The interpretation:

It is likely that in 400 years an original population of 100 could result in 2 million offspring.

The total population of Egypt when Joseph's family arrived was in the millions. So, following your exact procedure:

The total number of Egytians would have numbered 5,000,000 (5 million, an estimate)
The average age of reproduction success is 20
Each person would have 2 offspring (4 per couple)
There would be 20 possible reproductive generations in 400 years

The result:

At the end of 16 reproductive generations the total population of Egypt could be 327,700,000,000.

That's over 300 Billion, or dozens of times the whole population of the world today.

The interpretation:

rcorlew's calculation is meaningless because it assumes both unreasonable birth rates, as well as ignoring population constraints and what life in ancient egypt was like.

 

[Mallon]

When texts tell you that cars were created, and tests confirm that a bicycle cannot turn into a car, ignoring the evidence and lining up pictures of cars to compare them does not spawn the need for an alternate interpretation. There has always been the interpretation. It has nothing to do with Darwinism. And this is the one confirmed by science.

It's probably arguments like that that led Damian to start looking outside strict YECism. That's usually how it happens.

 

[Greg1234]

So yet again we have a creationist that think cars reproduce sexually, man do you guys ever learn basic biology?

Which is besides the fact that looking at cars and saying that it is the result of a random mutational origin is rejected based on the fact that tests confirm that a car cannot reproduce in the first place, and also that the convertible top does not lead to a motorcycle.

As with biological systems, when looking at a man and a chimp and comparing them with each other is rejected based on the fact that tests confirm bacteria cannot build a man. You guys are so quick to showcase some kind of evolutionary superiority that don't properly analyze arguments. This is becoming a trend.

 

[Greg1234]

It's probably arguments like that that led Damian to start looking outside strict YECism. That's usually how it happens.

I invite, in fact, implore, Damien, to look into random mutation and the doctrines of Darwinism. If he hasnt already, no time like the present to begin. He'll see for himself that random mutation cannot build a man.

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

I invite, in fact, implore, Damien, to look into random mutation and the doctrines of Darwinism. If he hasnt already, no time like the present to begin.

I'd guess he already has started. It's amazing what a little learning will do. Nonetheless, Greg and I actually appear to agree on something. That being that people should be encouraged to learn about evolution. I'd recommend talkorgins.org as a start.

Papias

P.S. I'm still waiting for Greg to make the nested hierarchy of cars that he repeatedly said he could do, as well as the other questions he continues to duck.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg wrote:



I'd guess he already has started. It's amazing what a little learning will do. Nonetheless, Greg and I actually appear to agree on something. That being that people should be encouraged to learn about evolution. I'd recommend talkorgins.org as a start.

Papias

And then, the tests which confirm that random mutation is sterile. From his quote "But assuming the account in genesis is symbolic and humans did evolve from single cell organisms or "goo"', it appears that he has already succumbed to the Darwinists' hijacking of the interpretation and believes that it is literalism or Darwinism. Which means that if there are symbols, then automatically Darwinism is applied. This has happened before, and is why the Darwinist expends all his energy on the term "literalism" and exactly what I was referring to. But then again, he'll see for himself.

 

[Mallon]

I invite, in fact, implore, Damien, to look into random mutation and the doctrines of Darwinism. If he hasnt already, no time like the present to begin. He'll see for himself that random mutation cannot build a man.

Maybe he'll also learn that random mutation doesn't act on its own to bring about evolution; rather, it acts in concert a whole bevy of other, very non-random processes like natural selection. That said, I would implore you to learn more about evolution, too, because your understanding of it is demonstrably incomplete.

 

[Greg1234]

Maybe he'll also learn that random mutation doesn't act on its own to bring about evolution; rather, it acts in concert a whole bevy of other, very non-random processes like natural selection. That said, I would implore you to learn more about evolution, too, because your understanding of it is demonstrably incomplete.

Natural selection. He'll learn don't worry.

 

[Mallon]

Natural selection. He'll learn don't worry.

I'm not worried. Statistics show that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to reject the theory of evolution.

 

[Greg1234]

I'm not worried. Statistics show that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to reject the theory of evolution.

More pictures. That must mean only stupid people are creationists. Have fun feeling educated. I'll take the tests results.

 

[shernren]

So yet again we have a creationist that think cars reproduce sexually, man do you guys ever learn basic biology?

But of course they do!

 

[rcorlew]

rcorlew wrote:



The total population of Egypt when Joseph's family arrived was in the millions. So, following your exact procedure:

The total number of Egytians would have numbered 5,000,000 (5 million, an estimate)
The average age of reproduction success is 20
Each person would have 2 offspring (4 per couple)
There would be 20 possible reproductive generations in 400 years

The result:

At the end of 16 reproductive generations the total population of Egypt could be 327,700,000,000.

That's over 300 Billion, or dozens of times the whole population of the world today.

The interpretation:

rcorlew's calculation is meaningless because it assumes both unreasonable birth rates, as well as ignoring population constraints and what life in ancient egypt was like.

My test was to test the possibility. The carrying capacity of Goshen would have been supportive of 2 million people, it was after all the best Egypt had to offer, and Hebrews were a favored race for much of their occupation. The test does not mean that that is what actually happened, it merely demonstrates that a population increase of that magnitude is possible, not even necessarily probable. You may want to look into the population counts immediately following the exodus, these play an important role for the rest of the Old Testament.

Extra credit for you if you can explain why the population counts in the Old Testament are important.

 

[Assyrian]

When texts tell you that cars were created, and tests confirm that a bicycle cannot turn into a car, ignoring the evidence and lining up pictures of cars to compare them does not spawn the need for an alternate interpretation. There has always been the interpretation. It has nothing to do with Darwinism. And this is the one confirmed by science.

I love the way you take an argument on one topic...
The pictures of cars that demolished your claim vehicles form a nested hierarchy

"The fact that vehicles are independently designed and still form a nested hierarchy"
​

And pretend it is an invalid argument for something else:

"lining up pictures of cars to compare them does not spawn the need for an alternate interpretation."​

 

[Greg1234]

I love the way you take an argument on one topic...
The pictures of cars that demolished your claim vehicles form a nested hierarchy

"The fact that vehicles are independently designed and still form a nested hierarchy"
​

And pretend it is an invalid argument for something else:

"lining up pictures of cars to compare them does not spawn the need for an alternate interpretation."​

I saw your examples met with similar examples in biological systems. Nothing was "demolished". Comparative anatomy, homology, and its most recent form, nested hierarchy keep being presented by Darwinists, and will be met with the same principle that even though a Mark 6 and a Honda civic look similar, they are both independently designed.

You went off to pointing out discrepancies between the two, in an attempt to smother this basic principle. You dont take a human and a chimp and say compare their anatomy, they are homologous or they fit perfectly within a nest (based on comparing homologous structures), so bacteria can turn into men. The rest of your argument was basically attempting to know the intent of the designer. Meaning that if man was designed, he would have wings. Doesnt work that way chief.