I read it literally now

[Philis]

Thanks but I'm not interested in buying the book.

I put the link there because you can click the "look inside" link and read the page where I quoted from. There are other good things said around it as well.

 

[KimberlyAA]

I believe the creation account can be taken as literal science. Darwin's ideas aren't universally accepted as his ideas contain flaws that have been pointed out by many scientists. Many people ask how can God make light before having a sun/moon but 1 John 1:5 states that " ... God is light ..." so he could have very well provided the light himself before creating the sun and moon to light the Earth. Also, why would God bother to make water just to separate it later? Many of the planets outside our solar system are said to be covered in deep ocean ... He created the heavens and the Earth. If he created planetary bodies including the Earth some covered with water and some not, he then may have decided to just manipulate the oceans to create landmasses afterward. I agree with you saying that it would have had to be easily understandable to the first audience though. But I believe it was written in such a way as to be understood by past, present and future generations in a simplified manner. Of course no one can go back in time to see how things were chronologically created.

 

[Philis]

I believe the creation account can be taken as literal science. Darwin's ideas aren't universally accepted as his ideas contain flaws that have been pointed out by many scientists.

What does understanding the context of the creation account have to do with evolution?

Why do people keep relating a non-literal translation to evolution? I still don't feel I've gotten an answer to this question.

 

[Greg1234]

1 John 1:5 states that " ... God is light ..." so he could have very well provided the light himself before creating the sun and moon to light the Earth

But you would correctly be suggesting that mind is over matter. I don't think all the implications of that, for example- mind manifesting into matter (aka "poof"), would be welcomed.

 

[Smidlee]

Thought I did a pretty good job in thoroughly refuting all those ostensible proof texts. I'm surprised you cited them again.

You know it's interesting, solid dome advocates often cite the windows of heaven as not being clouds but holes in the sky to force align them with ancient cosmologies. Yet scripture uses very similar metaphors for clouds. Here hebrew parallelism interchanges doors and clouds.

Psa. 78:23 Yet He had commanded the clouds above, And opened the doors of heaven,

I'm shocked solid domers really think the ancients didn't think clouds were the source of rain. I mean, it's a pretty obvious visual inference don't you think?

We know Elijah knew the source of rain was from the clouds. 1 kings 18:44 & 45.
Elijah even seem to know the sea had something to do with clouds. vs 43
******
Note the verse Gen 1:2 is repeated again in Jeremiah 4:23 where it clear Jeremiah is referring to judgement. The scriptures also speaks about a future judgement by fire with a new earth and heaven. We are also told former things with be pass away and remembered no more.
So will God create a whole bland new planet or just the surface of the planet. To us there is no difference. So it's possible there is a gap between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2. God could have judge the earth before and started anew with man. Former things pass away. Of course what God did before man doesn't help us one bit so it a waste of time telling us.

I do believe the scripture strongly supports the earth as we know it today is very young. Science can only know the past by what we know of the present. Since I believe God is involved in His creation this will throw the majority of the assumption by science off and unreliable.

 

[Calminian]

We know Elijah knew the source of rain was from the clouds. 1 kings 18:44 & 45.
Elijah even seem to know the sea had something to do with clouds. vs 43

yeah, I get the impression some TEs think the ancient were just complete idiots. As Seely argues, 'the sky is blue, therefore they thought there was an ocean up there. After all, rain comes from the sky.' This is supposedly scholarship. Yet, looking back as far as I can when I was a child, I can't remember believing rain coming from anything other than a cloud.

BTW, clouds are also called "bottles" metaphorically in addition to doors and windows.

Job 38:37 Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can pour out the bottles of heaven,

And clouds are heavenly masses according to scripture.

Dan. 7:13 “
I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.

Matt. 24:30 “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.​

Do we really believe the ancient thought clouds were attached to a solid dome int the sky? As a child I never inferred such a think looking up at them.

 

[Keachian]

Well, that would be a significant difference between the God that we each serve. Patience for what? Patience to allow stars to form and solidify?

Patience to create something beautiful and utterly amazing;

O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
Out of the mouth of babes and infants,
you have established strength because of your foes,
to still the enemy and the avenger.
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,
all sheep and oxen,
and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes along the paths of the seas.
O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!​

God created this realm so that man could have life.

Man-centric gospel, where in scripture do you get these things? God does things for one reason and one reason alone, his own Glory!

His patience, as Peter explained, is that He waits now to allow man to come to his senses and understand and acknowledge who He is. He did not wait patiently for all the bodies of the universe to form.

Who said anything about waiting, one can be patient and active in creation, in fact the idea that God is not being active in drawing his people back unto himself is unscriptural.

He created all of that near instantly, perfectly formed and operating, so that man has a place to live.

I'll point you back to Psalm 8 quoted above.

I can certainly understand how you might not find that any difference of significance in understanding God, but I'm not in agreement.

Is God the God of YEC only? Is he not the God of TEs also? Yes, of TEs also, since God is one. He will justify the YEC by faith and the TE through faith.

 

[Smidlee]

yeah, I get the impression some TEs think the ancient were just complete idiots. As Seely argues, 'the sky is blue, therefore they thought there was an ocean up there. After all, rain comes from the sky.' This is supposedly scholarship. Yet, looking back as far as I can when I was a child, I can't remember believing rain coming from anything other than a cloud.

If the Lord doesn't return a thousands years from now and people of the future look back on us they may get the impression we all were a butch of idiots who believe in (Neo) Darwinism. I'm sure in the future they will get a good laugh of how much faith people put in natural selection.

 

[gluadys]

I believe the creation account can be taken as literal science.

I believe the creation account can certainly be taken literally, but not as science.

It also seems that you are seriously misled about the acceptability of evolutionary theory among scientists.


God "may have decided" to do a lot of things, but surely the interesting thing to discover is what God did do, not what he may have done.

Ad hoc hypotheses get us nowhere without evidence of real action.

 

[Leggomyegolas]

I've been reading this and a few other threads in the Origins section, and I keep seeing the abreviation ANE. What does that stand for? At first I thought it was just "any" misspelled, but it's appearing too often to be a typo.

 

[Smidlee]

I've been reading this and a few other threads in the Origins section, and I keep seeing the abreviation ANE. What does that stand for? At first I thought it was just "any" misspelled, but it's appearing too often to be a typo.

I believe in this case it means Ancient Near East. Sometimes it can mean Anything aNd Everything or A Necessary Evil .

 

[Calminian]

I believe the creation account can certainly be taken literally, but not as science.

What gluadys really means it's it can't be taken as history because it doesn't line up with her naturalistic beliefs about history.

What's interesting is, the Resurrection account also can't be taken as science.

 

[Leggomyegolas]

What's interesting is, the Resurrection account also can't be taken as science.

Good point There's lots of things we, as Christians, believe on the basis of faith because God says it's true in His Word, even though they can't be taken as science. His own existence, for example. The existence of angels and demons, the ability of God's prophets to foretell the future and perform miracles in His name, etc.

 

[gluadys]

What gluadys really means it's it can't be taken as history because it doesn't line up with her naturalistic beliefs about history.

What's interesting is, the Resurrection account also can't be taken as science.

Right. The Resurrection account cannot be taken as science. However, it can be taken as history.

It is an example of the fact that history need not be scientific to be true.

What do you mean by "naturalistic" in "naturalistic beliefs about history"?

If you mean "excludes divine action" I do not have naturalistic beliefs about history. Any history. Including the history of China or India, Brazil or the USA.

 

[Calminian]

Right. The Resurrection account cannot be taken as science. However, it can be taken as history.

It is an example of the fact that history need not be scientific to be true.

What do you mean by "naturalistic" in "naturalistic beliefs about history"?

If you mean "excludes divine action" I do not have naturalistic beliefs about history. Any history. Including the history of China or India, Brazil or the USA.

But you are using science to form your views of history (that is prerecorded history), and science must assume methodological naturalism and methodological uniformitarianism (the exclusion of divine action).

You may not realize it, but your philosophical views are in conflict on this issue.

 

[Calminian]

Good point There's lots of things we, as Christians, believe on the basis of faith because God says it's true in His Word, even though they can't be taken as science. His own existence, for example. The existence of angels and demons, the ability of God's prophets to foretell the future and perform miracles in His name, etc.

Good point as well.

IMO, there is a confusion or perhaps a conflation of the terms science and logic in many of these types of discussion. Science must be logical, but logic need not be scientific. While miracles are not scientific, there is nothing illogical about them.

This is where I think many christians go astray. They go beyond interpreting scripture theo-logically (thinking logically about God) and move interpreting scripture theo-scientifically (thinking scientifically about God). This places the God of miracles and author of the natural laws in a very illogical box. They don't realize it, but their actually trading logic for science, which defeats their whole purpose.

Problem is, this is not the easiest concept to grasp. Most scientists themselves don't completely understand it.

 

[gluadys]

But you are using science to form your views of history (that is prerecorded history), and science must assume methodological naturalism and methodological uniformitarianism (the exclusion of divine action).

You mean like archeology and paleontology? Well, those sciences are the only objective means we have of knowing prerecorded history.


But you are misdefining methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism. Neither excludes divine action. The only implication is that God chose to act in nature in the past as God does today.

How do you think God acts in nature today?

You may not realize it, but your philosophical views are in conflict on this issue.

Well, you will have to enlighten me more on this. I often get the impression from creationists that apart from occasional supernatural events, they view the creation as devoid of divine presence.

I don't.

Let's put it this way.

If we look at every event, occurrence, process, cause, effect, etc. in the whole history of the created world, we can say of each that it is
a) artificial
b) natural
c) supernatural

By a) artificial we usually mean it was a planned manipulation of nature by humans for human benefit. e.g. a swimming pool vs. a natural pond, a garden vs. a natural meadow. There are other animals that also manipulate nature for their benefit (birds build nests, beavers build dams) but we usually limit "artificial" to human activity.

c) I think we both agree on. This refers to events not humanly planned or possible, but also not within what we expect of nature. So they are unique events due solely to the power of God. e.g. a people crosses a body of water on dry land, people are healed of snakebite by looking at a bronze image, fire falls from the sky to consume a sacrifice with no human hand lighting it, etc.

But what about b) natural?


As I see it, God is just as active here as in c). We can classify all God's activity into two categories:

natural--what God is always doing most of the time.
supernatural--what God does occasionally for special purposes and in special modes of action.


To me, defining b) as "neither human nor divine action; just happens on its own" amounts to saying God is an absentee landlord only looking in now and again. God is not permanently present to creation.

I don't think that is a position consistent with Christian faith.

Good point as well.

IMO, there is a confusion or perhaps a conflation of the terms science and logic in many of these types of discussion. Science must be logical, but logic need not be scientific. While miracles are not scientific, there is nothing illogical about them.

This is where I think many christians go astray. They go beyond interpreting scripture theo-logically (thinking logically about God) and move interpreting scripture theo-scientifically (thinking scientifically about God). This places the God of miracles and author of the natural laws in a very illogical box. They don't realize it, but their actually trading logic for science, which defeats their whole purpose.

Problem is, this is not the easiest concept to grasp. Most scientists themselves don't completely understand it.

I think I am mostly in agreement with what you are saying here.
I think it is more important to think theologically about science than to think scientifically about God. The latter is not really possible anyway.

Science is not automatically a rejection of God; it only becomes so when people choose a philosophy that ejects God from nature. Obviously that would not be a Christian philosophy either of God, science or nature.

 

[Leggomyegolas]

But what about b) natural?


As I see it, God is just as active here as in c). We can classify all God's activity into two categories:

natural--what God is always doing most of the time.
supernatural--what God does occasionally for special purposes and in special modes of action.

Sounds good to me , the difference between "natural" and "supernatural" is only the difference between "common" and "rare."

 

[Greg1234]

But you are misdefining methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism. Neither excludes divine action.

That's the intended use of the word. He is saying "methodological naturalism" or "excludes or is contrary to divine action."

 

[Philis]

If you interpret the Scriptures as being derived from Near Eastern Literature you are reducing it to a pagan mythology.

The mystery of divine creativity is, of course, ultimately unknowable. The Genesis narrative does not seek to make intelligible what is beyond human ken. To draw upon human language to explain that which is outside any model of human experience is inevitably to confront the inescapable limitations of any attempt to give verbal expression to this subject. For this reason alone, the narrative in its external form must reflect the time and place of its composition. Thus it directs us to take account of the characteristic modes of literary expression current in ancient Israel. It forces us to realize that a literalistic approach to the text must inevitably confuse idiom with idea, symbol with reality. The result would be to obscure the enduring meaning of that text.

I read that and think, yea ok, so what? I'm very familiar with the literary style of the narrative and it was written to be an oral lesson. The Levites had to teach this to people who were largely illiterate. The language is pretty conversational and there is very little in the way of linguistic challenges, doctrinally it argues nothing God as creator is a given. What's the admonition here, confusing idea with idiom? Nonsense, there is nothing relevant in this excerpt.

It is specifically relevant to what you said. Look at what you said. You said that to "interpret the Scriptures as being derived from Near Eastern Literature you are reducing it to a pagan mythology". The quote that I posted directly contradicts that and says that we must interpret it from ANE context, and to do otherwise would be to confuse symbol with reality. That is exactly what is going on here. You are using a concordist interpretation and confusing the original meaning with your current cosmology. Doing that is the same as "confusing symbol with reality".

How you can read that and tell me there is nothing relevant in it is beyond me.

Used by who exactly? The sources I keep giving are Christian/Jewish sources that have no stake in the creation/evolution debate. They are scholars of the bible. You also have sources that may contradict what I refer to, and that is fine, it's part of the discussion of theology. It has nothing to do with trying to smugle in Darwinian philosophy. You keep going back to that meme of yours and I just don't see why.

Used by atheists who are adept at taking their philosophy and putting it in theological terminology. It's been called so many things over the last hundred and fifty years but it all falls under the general category of Liberal Theology for me. Darwinism is nothing but a transcendent principle of God being absent, there is nothing else to it. The overt hostility to a primary doctrinal concept as fundamental as Creationism can only be derived from an atheistic materialist world view.

I'm starting to think that you don't spend a lot of time listening to other people and considering what they say. I said "I am using Christian/Jewish scholars as sources who have no stake in the evolution debate". In other posts I've pointed out that many of the sources from Christian theology predate Darwin. Your response: "It's atheists who are putting their philosophy into theology." Seriously? I don't even know how to respond to that because it seems so irrational to me.

Sure, Christians defend this Darwinian view of the origins of life back to the Big Bang but they do so at the expense of their own convictions. There was nothing in that quote that remotely challenges any of my doctrinal or theological premises. What is more you have a lot of nerve to sound off about my theology when the theistic evolutionists on here, yourself included, for all intents and purposes have none.

What do you mean I have no theology?

You can criticize my theology when you actually have one of your own you would like to compare it to.

I do, when it comes to the creation account I read it in the same literal fashion it would have been read over 2,000 years ago. That gives me a lot of insight into the meaning and gives me a great theology regarding God, people, our fallen state, our need for salvation, etc. It makes a great intro into the history of the Isrealites by setting up key theological points.

I have no problem comparing that to the concordists who try to fit it to modern cosmology and miss the point of it by confusing symbol with reality. Simply asserting that I'm using some kind of Darwinian philosophy is so naive it makes me think you haven't studied any theological sources outside of the few that share your view. There has been thousands of years of Christian theology books written on this, none of which care about evolution. If you think every view other than your own is a Satanic rouse then I suggest you hit the books and get educated on theology a bit better. I'm just starting to get into this and I already seem to be more familiar with Christian theology than your alleged 30 years of study.

I have tried to make all of my posts here as polite as possible, and I admit this doesn't fall into that catagory, but your constant dismissal of valid theology that dates back thousands of years needs to be called out. I mean really, do you think the earliest Christains read the creation account the way I posted it in the OP, or did they interpret it the way that you have described it? I dare you to try to answer that one.