If Genesis isn't literal, and God used Evolution instead...

[panterapat]

However the universe was created, big bang, point of singularity, six days, whatever- God did it. However man came into being, creation, evolution, etc- God did it.

The Bible has many literary forms. There are historical chronologies, literal text, parables,figurtive language, etc. etc. To believe that man evolved and the universe was created by a big bang DOES NOT exclude God's authorship of all creation.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

However the universe was created, big bang, point of singularity, six days, whatever- God did it. However man came into being, creation, evolution, etc- God did it.

The Bible has many literary forms. There are historical chronologies, literal text, parables,figurtive language, etc. etc. To believe that man evolved and the universe was created by a big bang DOES NOT exclude God's authorship of all creation.

I don't think anyone on this particular forum is disputing any of that.

 

[wblastyn]

Mmm. I assume, however, that most of the contributors to this particular area of the forum do still retain a faith in God, since this is a 'Christians-only' area... so on the flipside, why can you not resolve the sovereignty of God with what you see around you? Why is it that God is unable to simply speak into existence all of creation? At what point did evolution kick in? Before or after the primordial soup?

God was perfectly capable of calling evreything into existance, Creation just says he choose not to. Why would someone plant their own vegetables rather than go down to a shop and buy them?

Evolution kicks in when there is life, so after the life formed from the primordial soup.

 

[Vance]

Yes, I can't believe YEC's constantly use this argument: a belief in evolution equals a belief that God could not have created everything in six days. This is so ridiculous that it makes me want to pull out my hair. After all, YEC's believe that God created in six 24-hour days when we all know He could have done it in six milliseconds. God has done all kinds of things He could have done idifferently. For one thing, He could have created a world in which there could be no doubt how He did it. He could have created a Bible which could not be interpreted in so many different ways on almost every topic that we now have hundreds and hundreds of denominations.

 

[thekawasakikid]

God was perfectly capable of calling evreything into existance, Creation just says he choose not to. Why would someone plant their own vegetables rather than go down to a shop and buy them?

Evolution kicks in when there is life, so after the life formed from the primordial soup.

What? Doesn't the creation account in Genesis say he did call everything into existence? You've confused me.

Vance, I apologise if I misrepresented myself. I suppose I'm just trying to provoke some answers, from both sides, which might help me... even if that means I have to play devil's advocate sometimes. In this instance, I was merely asking how much evolution plays a part of creation? I'd rather have it explained than be labelled a YEC. I think I know one or two of them and I certainly do not fit that description...

 

[wblastyn]

What? Doesn't the creation account in Genesis say he did call everything into existence? You've confused me.

Yes, He commands the earth to bring forth life. Couldn't that be evolution?

 

[Buck72]

Yes, I can't believe YEC's constantly use this argument: a belief in evolution equals a belief that God could not have created everything in six days. This is so ridiculous that it makes me want to pull out my hair. After all, YEC's believe that God created in six 24-hour days when we all know He could have done it in six milliseconds. God has done all kinds of things He could have done idifferently. For one thing, He could have created a world in which there could be no doubt how He did it. He could have created a Bible which could not be interpreted in so many different ways on almost every topic that we now have hundreds and hundreds of denominations.

God could have created Hummer's for our early ancestors to drive around in so they wouldn't have to walk. Since He didn't, it is a non-point.

God cannot lie. Therefore why would He say "SIX DAYS" to create the heaven and the earth so that the wiley thinkers of the 21st century would discover astounding new evidence that proves His word incorrect?

He did create a Bible that anyone can read. The simple minded and the genius alike can turn page after page and read the Bible right off the page without a guru to tell them what it really means. Arguments and divisions are man's invention (see below for doctrinal splits) - all the more reason to guard what you accept as true. There are some knuckle-headed scientists out there that have written some bad theories into evolution that are still being taught today.


Pro 18:1 He who separates himself seeks his own desire, He quarrels against all sound wisdom.

1Co 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1Co 1:11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.

1Co 1:12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."

1Co 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?




(I apologize for the sarcasm - I'm tired.)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

God did not write Genesis. Men did. They used the influences they had - existing creation myths and folk memories of floods for example - to create a vehicle through which God was able to communicate theological truth.

There are two clearly identifiable traditions within the first two chapters of Genesis alone - that which always refers to God as Elohim, and that which always refers to Him as YHWH Adonai. They present the two - contradictory - creation stories. It doesn't read like dictation from God. It isn't dictation from God. It is the inspired writing of men.

 

[Vance]

Buck, there are even more knuckle-headed Christians out there clinging to false interpretation of God's Word preaching false doctrines. I believe that God had a more direct hand in the drafting of Genesis than Karl does, and I agree that He wrote it for all to be able to read and get the meaning out of. This is exactly WHY He could not write it as a detailed scientific explanation of how HE did it. That would not be accessible for everyone to read. Instead He wrote it in a way that POWERFULLY provides the message He intended: God created the universe and everything in it, He is in charge, nothing is here without Him, He created Man to be in a special role and gave Man the chance to live in full communion with Him, Man failed, though and has lost communion with Him and needs redemption: thus setting up the all important message of the Gospel. I think Genesis gets that message across pretty well.

God can not lie, of course. But He also can not tell us every detail of the truth, either, for the very reasons you mentioned. And He DEFINITELY is not going to lie in His Creation, which would be the case if the Earth was 12,000 years old.

 

[DaQo'tah]

yes,,,,the 6th day of the creation story has a very clear ending.....and the 7th?


I said, ,,,the 7th?...does it have an ending?...

go look,,,,search the whole bible that states that the 7th day of creation has ended.....

there is not a line in the bible that teaches that the 7th day of the Lord's creation week has ended....

very interesting....

 

[Buck72]

God did not write Genesis. Men did. They used the influences they had - existing creation myths and folk memories of floods for example - to create a vehicle through which God was able to communicate theological truth.

There are two clearly identifiable traditions within the first two chapters of Genesis alone - that which always refers to God as Elohim, and that which always refers to Him as YHWH Adonai. They present the two - contradictory - creation stories. It doesn't read like dictation from God. It isn't dictation from God. It is the inspired writing of men.

Karl, how about ditching the myth and folk memories nonsense? That is absolutely among the most untrue statements in this forum. Where does this come from!?

Christianity does not hang in the balance whether evolution is (which it isn't) true or not. This supposed fragility of the faith from the TE perspective is absurd.

I find it bothersome that you challnege doctrinal interpretations while you refer to scripture as a "myth" and a "folk memory". Scripture validates itself that it is, in fact, the inspired word of GOD; Who, by the way has many names throughout scripture. I'll be happy to list them all for you if you'd like.

There are no contradictions anywhere in scripture. Period. There is no one alive that can show, prove, or demonstrate a contradiction from the literal reading of the Bible.

 

[wblastyn]

Karl, how about ditching the myth and folk memories nonsense? That is absolutely among the most untrue statements in this forum. Where does this come from!?

myth ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (m

th)
n.

1. 1. <LI type=a>A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
   2. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

Christianity does not hang in the balance whether evolution is (which it isn't) true or not. This supposed fragility of the faith from the TE perspective is absurd.

Erm, it's the creationists who say if evolution is true then Christianity is false, not the TE's.

I find it bothersome that you challnege doctrinal interpretations while you refer to scripture as a "myth" and a "folk memory". Scripture validates itself that it is, in fact, the inspired word of GOD; Who, by the way has many names throughout scripture. I'll be happy to list them all for you if you'd like.

Why can't God inspire myth?

There are no contradictions anywhere in scripture. Period. There is no one alive that can show, prove, or demonstrate a contradiction from the literal reading of the Bible.

1 Chronicles 21:1
Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.
​

2 Samuel 24:1
Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."​

Was it god or Satan who moved David to number Israel?​

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl, how about ditching the myth and folk memories nonsense? That is absolutely among the most untrue statements in this forum.

Says you.

Where does this come from!?

The documentary hypothesis is extremely well documented. I'm not surprised your fundamentalist churches keep it from you, but it's there nonetheless.

Christianity does not hang in the balance whether evolution is (which it isn't) true or not. This supposed fragility of the faith from the TE perspective is absurd.

Fragility? It is the YEC version of the faith that is fragile. How many times have I heard that if the literal genesis interpretation is overturned Christianity is undone? Fortunately, that's not true.

I find it bothersome that you challnege doctrinal interpretations while you refer to scripture as a "myth" and a "folk memory".

But I didn't. I said it was an inspired narrative derived from myths and folk memories. Do please actually read what I post!

Scripture validates itself that it is, in fact, the inspired word of GOD; Who, by the way has many names throughout scripture. I'll be happy to list them all for you if you'd like.

It's the inspired word of God as well as being myth and folk memory. That's what I mean by it being an inspired narrative derived from myth and folk memory. What's the problem? Unless along with conflating S with Sl (as mentioned elsewhere; I'm sure you've been following) you also conflate inspiration, dictation and infallibility. Your inabilility to distinguish between these seperate issues is not a weakness in my position.

There are no contradictions anywhere in scripture. Period. There is no one alive that can show, prove, or demonstrate a contradiction from the literal reading of the Bible.

Two off the top of my head - remember - you said the literal reading of the Bible:

2 Samuel 24

Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

Versus

1 Chronicles 21

Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.


And:

Exodus 20 v. 5

...punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me,

Versus:

Ezekiel 18 1-2 & 20

The word of the LORD came to me. "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel.

'The fathers eat sour grapes
and the children's teeth are set on edge'?

"As surely as I live," declares the Sovereign LORD, "you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel...The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the huilt of the son"

 

[Vance]

And, so that you don't think that all TE's believe that Genesis is an inspired myth (which would be easy for you to dismiss, then), I tend to read Scripture literally unless there is an almost absolute necessity to read it as something other than literal. I tend to think that the Genesis stories tell us of actual historical events, but accept that some symbolic or poetic language is used.

The question of whether to read a passage symbolic or literally is not often as easy as YEC's would like to make it. As I have often pointed out, the groups which tend to be YEC are also the groups which tend to interpret Song of Solomon as an allegory for Christ and His Bride the Church, even though there is much less reason, in terms of literary "signals", to read it allegorically than Genesis.

 

[Buck72]

Buck, there are even more knuckle-headed Christians out there clinging to false interpretation of God's Word preaching false doctrines.

Does someone here have a mirror?

This "false doctrine" lie is getting tiresome. PROVE IT WITH SCRIPTURE OR DROP IT PLEASE. It takes away any credibility you would otherwise have within the context of this christian forum.

This is exactly WHY He could not write it as a detailed scientific explanation of how HE did it. That would not be accessible for everyone to read.

Yeah, it's that little piece called: "FAITH". God does not owe us a schematic or a blueprint; even if He provided one you guys would still not believe it if it doesn't jive with YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION of what YOU THINK.

Joh 4:48 So Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe."

Funny how many theistic evolutionists here mercilessly lambaste the YEC crowd, all the while crouching behind a thin veneer of their own indulgent self-righteousness, which under the light of scripture is hardly something to boast of. Even more so to slander another believer for not agreeing with their own dogmatic posture, while standing upon the proud pulpit of anti-dogmatism!

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

Instead He wrote it in a way that POWERFULLY provides the message He intended: God created the universe and everything in it, He is in charge, nothing is here without Him, He created Man to be in a special role and gave Man the chance to live in full communion with Him, Man failed, though and has lost communion with Him and needs redemption: thus setting up the all important message of the Gospel. I think Genesis gets that message across pretty well.

Amen!! Alas, we agree on something!

God can not lie, of course.

This is what I've been telling you guys for the last three weeks. Explain how my posts, which include over 70% scripture (yours contain less than 1% at best) are attributed with lying? I feel like I've stepped into a room where normalcy is considered "alternative thinking". How can you correctly assert that God cannot lie, and with the same breath point out "lies" in simple, easy-to-read, elementary, non-interprative, unassumptive, basic TEXT. Six Days; worldwide flood, 6,078 year lineage from Adam to Christ, to 2003. Perhaps there is another side to that coin?

But He also can not tell us every detail of the truth, either, for the very reasons you mentioned. And He DEFINITELY is not going to lie in His Creation, which would be the case if the Earth was 12,000 years old.

Vance, please show me where God is lying in asserting the "evening and a morning, THE SIXTH DAY" account? Or the "earth-covering Flood", or the clear posting of the years from Adam to Christ in the geneology? Perhaps He put that in there just to confound us dumb 'ol YEC types, or maybe He put it in there to assert that He really did create it all in six days, 6,000(ish) years ago? I ceaselessly contest it is the 'interprative speculation' of "6,000 is actually BILLIONS of years" that is awry here.

Back to the faith thing again. Have you guys read Hebrews 11 recently? Why do we need every detail when it says in simple letters "six days" and "earth-covering flood", and "x-years from Adam to Christ"? You guys demonstrate the inability to handle large macro-concepts and yet argue about lack of detail somehow disproves YEC. It is the same thing Christ told the Pharisees, who too were caught up in trivial detail and yet missed the whole point:

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

Mat 23:24 "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

Now before I invite another round of 'Buck-bashing', may I address the context and purpose of the above quote:

Those that consider themselves 'religious' must understand that we will be judged not on what we know. We will be judged according to our faithfulness and our LIVING OUT of the 'greater things'. My passion in what I write has ZERO to do with Buck, and EVERYTHING to do with the purity of the Word, the counsel of the living God and its (literal) presentation, and preservation to the saints for the building up of their faith in Him Who has saved us by the spilling of His own blood.

This is kinda important, and worth taking a stand for.

YEC/TE ultimately could be considered a 'gnat', but the living Word of God is definitely a camel and is being discredited left and right within this forum.

Therefore, we must be cautious with the casual use of the words "lie", "false doctrine", and "interpretation" when we're dealing with these issues.

 

[Buck72]

And, so that you don't think that all TE's believe that Genesis is an inspired myth (which would be easy for you to dismiss, then), I tend to read Scripture literally unless there is an almost absolute necessity to read it as something other than literal. I tend to think that the Genesis stories tell us of actual historical events, but accept that some symbolic or poetic language is used.

The question of whether to read a passage symbolic or literally is not often as easy as YEC's would like to make it. As I have often pointed out, the groups which tend to be YEC are also the groups which tend to interpret Song of Solomon as an allegory for Christ and His Bride the Church, even though there is much less reason, in terms of literary "signals", to read it allegorically than Genesis.

Good point Vance. The only question I would have with this statement is how do we know what is literal, and how do we know what is 'symbolic'?

This is why we have so many demoninations, er, denominations (spell check). I'm just kidding.

Seriously though, this is a legitimate argument you assert, and I do not have a solid answer for you except to allow scripture to answer for itself. There are 500 references to "Word of God" (NASB); here's a few below. Nowhere could I find a separation of literal and symbolic, except in the parables where it is announced as a parable so as not to create any confusion

1Co 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.

Isa 55:11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

Isa 66:2 "For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD. "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

Jer 23:28 "The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?" declares the LORD.

Jer 23:29 "Is not My word like fire?" declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which shatters a rock?

Eze 12:28 "Therefore say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "None of My words will be delayed any longer. Whatever word I speak will be performed,"'" declares the Lord GOD.

Luk 8:21 But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

Luk 11:28 But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."

Joh 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Joh 8:31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;

Joh 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.

Joh 8:51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

Joh 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

2Co 4:2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

1Th 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Can I get an amen?

1Ti 4:4-5 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

1Pe 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

2Pe 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

Rev 1:2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

Rev 3:8 'I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

Psa 119:105 Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

 

[Vance]

Buck said:

Yeah, it's that little piece called: "FAITH". God does not owe us a schematic or a blueprint; even if He provided one you guys would still not believe it if it doesn't jive with YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION of what YOU THINK.


You are right, God does not owe us a schematic or a blueprint, and He didn’t give us one. The text He gave us can not even come close to providing every detail of how He created this universe. He gave us a text which tells the story in very general terms, and yes, it is possible to read it in the simplest and most basic manner in the English translation to refer to a six 24-hour day process. But that is not the only way to read it. And, when you then consider that the overwhelming evidence from the actual Creation itself indicates that it was NOT created 6,000 years ago, it behooves every Christian to consider whether the other possible readings of Genesis 1 are more correct.


Joh 4:48 So Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe."That is very ironic that you use this verse, since it is the YEC’s that are insisting God had to create in a miraculous six 24-hour a day process or God is not God.
Funny how many theistic evolutionists here mercilessly lambaste the YEC crowd, all the while crouching behind a thin veneer of their own indulgent self-righteousness, which under the light of scripture is hardly something to boast of. Even more so to slander another believer for not agreeing with their own dogmatic posture, while standing upon the proud pulpit of anti-dogmatism!

Wow, this is like the Twilight Zone. My position has been all along that YEC’s should simply not teach their position as dogmatic truth, but one approach among many that Christians follow in regards to Genesis 1. The YEC’s on the other hand are the ones who accuse non-YEC’s of all stripes and flavors of being not true Bible-believing Christians, weak and compromising in their faith, too inclined to worldly over spiritual perspectives, etc, etc, etc.


This is what I've been telling you guys [the Bible does not lie] for the last three weeks. Explain how my posts, which include over 70% scripture (yours contain less than 1% at best) are attributed with lying? I feel like I've stepped into a room where normalcy is considered "alternative thinking". How can you correctly assert that God cannot lie, and with the same breath point out "lies" in simple, easy-to-read, elementary, non-interprative, unassumptive, basic TEXT. Six Days; worldwide flood, 6,078 year lineage from Adam to Christ, to 2003. Perhaps there is another side to that coin?

I have never seen anyone on this forum point to a "lie" in Scripture. Indicating that something is non-literal is not saying it is not true. The only lie would be if God created a world in six 24-hour days but did so in a way that absolutely looks as if it is billions of years old. We know that neither the Bible nor God’s Creation can lie. So, since the Earth looks and tests as if it is billions of years old, it must be that old.


Vance, please show me where God is lying in asserting the "evening and a morning, THE SIXTH DAY" account? Or the "earth-covering Flood", or the clear posting of the years from Adam to Christ in the geneology? Perhaps He put that in there just to confound us dumb 'ol YEC types, or maybe He put it in there to assert that He really did create it all in six days, 6,000(ish) years ago? I ceaselessly contest it is the 'interprative speculation' of "6,000 is actually BILLIONS of years" that is awry here.

See above. God does not lie, either in Scripture or in His Creation. You have a text which can be read more than one way (both "day" and the phrase "morning and evening" have multiple meanings, for one thing, or they could be poetical language). And you have an Earth that indicates by every piece of evidence that it is billions of years old. Since neither this Creation nor the Scripture can be false, the reading of a six 24-hour a day creation 6,000 years ago is more likely false (remember geocentrism). You act as if a belief in an old earth is something odd or unusual in the Christian community. You act as if a belief in a young earth is "normalcy" among Christians. I am not sure where you get this.

Back to the faith thing again. Have you guys read Hebrews 11 recently?

Of course.

Why do we need every detail when it says in simple letters "six days" and "earth-covering flood", and "x-years from Adam to Christ"?

Because it is not actually that simple. I wish it was.

You guys demonstrate the inability to handle large macro-concepts and yet argue about lack of detail somehow disproves YEC.

No, it is simply the evidence of God’s Creation that disproves YEC’ism. Over and over and over again.

It is the same thing Christ told the Pharisees, who too were caught up in trivial detail and yet missed the whole point:

Mat 23:23"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.Mat 23:24"You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

Again, the irony here is amazing. The YEC’s are so tied into their literal, "plain", reading of Scripture that they fail to see the bigger possibilities of what God could be meaning and what God could have been doing. Just as the scribes and Pharisees, they cling to their tightly traditional approaches and fail to step back and see how they could be off-track, or even acknowledge the possibility.
Now before I invite another round of 'Buck-bashing', may I address the context and purpose of the above quote:

Those that consider themselves 'religious' must understand that we will be judged not on what we know. We will be judged according to our faithfulness and our LIVING OUT of the 'greater things'. My passion in what I write has ZERO to do with Buck, and EVERYTHING to do with the purity of the Word, the counsel of the living God and its (literal) presentation, and preservation to the saints for the building up of their faith in Him Who has saved us by the spilling of His own blood.
Funny, that is my goal as well (other than the "literal" part). I just feel that the "preservation of the saints and the building up of their faith" is much better served by dispelling the dogmatic presentation of YEC’ism.

This is kinda important, and worth taking a stand for.

Exactly.

YEC/TE ultimately could be considered a 'gnat', but the living Word of God is definitely a camel and is being discredited left and right within this forum.

Oh, it is true that the issue of origins is, indeed, a gnat in comparison with the true Message of God. That is my whole and entire point. The YEC’s have taken that gnat and made it into a camel by equating a belief in a young earth and a disbelief in evolution with "true" Christianity. This conflation is what is damaging. If the YEC’s left it as a gnat, and stated that people just have different beliefs on this point, there would be no problems. We would still find the debate interesting, of course, but we would not be losing souls. I believe with all my heart and soul that it is the YEC position which is damaging, and descrediting, the Word of God every single day.

Imagine it this way: if someone was running around today insisting that the Scripture states, when read correctly, that the universe is geocentric and that the earth is flat, would that not be discrediting the the Word of God? Could you not see that if people believed that the Bible actually said this that their willingness to accept Scripture would be hindered? Well, for a LOT of Christians, this is the effect YEC'ism is having.

Therefore, we must be cautious with the casual use of the words "lie", "false doctrine", and "interpretation" when we're dealing with these issues.
You are right, I should say "dangerous doctrine that is most likely false."

 

[Vance]

Buck said:

Seriously though, this is a legitimate argument you assert, and I do not have a solid answer for you except to allow scripture to answer for itself. There are 500 references to "Word of God" (NASB); here's a few below. Nowhere could I find a separation of literal and symbolic, except in the parables where it is announced as a parable so as not to create any confusion.

Right, and I wish God had done that every single time we were to read a Scripture non-literally. But He didn't. I think this is because His purpose was to present a True message and He knew that most cultures throughout history would not be bothered by "literalness" or "historiocity" (which is true, most ancient cultures didn't even make clear distinctions, as I have discussed elsewhere). In our modern society, we "know" so much that we are proud to be able to distinguish between true history and allegorical tales. Ironically, it is the great increase in scientific knowledge since the Age of Reason and our detailed knowledge of the world around us also which has instilled in us a need to compartmentalize this knowledge. History goes here. Allegorical Tales go over here. Symbolic language goes over here. We don't realize that God can speak TRUTH to us in any fashion He wants.

The confusing truth is that God gave us a Scripture which allows for so many interpretations on almost every point of theology that we not only have thousands of different beliefs, we have actually killed each other over them. It is exactly when we say that this interpretation (literal six-days, for example) MUST be correct and all others MUST be incorrect, on non-salvation issues, that these uneccessary conflicts arise.

Now, I believe that that the 24-hour reading of YOM in Genesis is incorrect, and I will tell anyone who wants to hear exactly why I believe this. But I would never say that if my interpretation is not correct, the Bible is not correct. I would never say that if a person believes that the world was created 6,000 years ago can not be a true Christian. I would never place these types of stumbling blocks before others.

 

[wblastyn]

Good point Vance. The only question I would have with this statement is how do we know what is literal, and how do we know what is 'symbolic'?

You look at what we see in Creation then what we see in scripture. If a literal interpretation of scripture contradicts reality then it cannot be literal.

Creation tells us the earth is ancient, life has evolved over billions of years, the earth is a sphere and not at the center of the solar system. Therefore, those verses which indicate the opposite cannot be literal.

 

[Vance]

You know, though, this is even applicable to those who simply are not sure *whether* the earth is old, whether geocentrism is true, etc.

It can be something like "I don't know whether the earth is really old or not, but if it IS old, then the seemingly conflicting Scripture may be non-literal or a non-traditional interpretation may be more correct. Either way, Scripture is wholly True."