is creation outside of science's scope?

archaeologist said:

not if you are using it to give you justification to change what God's word says. here is what matthew henry has to say:

Click to expand...

And here is what St. Augustine had to say:

Augustine said:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

Click to expand...

You are not correctly relaying the scriptural message since you are focusing on a historical interpretation of Genesis 1-2. This type of newspaper accuracy is never found in ancient Hebrew or any other period literature and to insist that God must have written according to your personal values is incredibly arrogant.

archaeologist said:

No you are ignoring what God said in scripture and saying that God allowed for his words to be compromised, badly written and filled with secular influences.

Click to expand...

And you are ignoring that nowhere in the Hebrew, Egyptian or Assyrian cultures was embellished oral history ever considered "compromised, badly written or secularly influenced." In fact, these cultures would routinely misrecord ages in favor of recording an age that represented something more meaningful. In our culture we now consider such a practice to be compromised, but in the ancient near east, it was considered more truthful. If you try to fit the Bible into a modernist or even post-modernist framework, yes, an accurate interpretation will look compromised every time.

why don't you come right out and say that God allowed sin to influence, alter his holy words and allowed us to be deceived by the very words meant to guide us to Him. and if your version is correct, how can we trust the words in john 3:16?

God does not lie thus either He lied about giving us the truth or you are wrong. which is it?

Click to expand...

Neither. God gave us truth through a culture that did not primarily value facts over meaning. Why don't you just come right out and say that you believe God could only have written with your personal values in mind and that you value your personal interpretation over the truth of scripture itself?

I think I've lost the plot in this thread now... what are we talking about? (anyone can answer this)

Digit

archaeologist said:

more food for thought:

The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.
Professor Barr said,
"Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

**this is the quote i mentioned earlier.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you source is, but this quote comes up time and again from YECs and creationist websites, but they only ever seem to quote part of Barr's letter.

archaeologist said:

to answer yor quote, here is the full context of what he was saying:

"
CHAPTER 20

We should remember that Scripture, even in its obscure passages, has been written to nourish our souls.
40. With these facts in mind, I have worked out and present-ed the statements of the Book68 of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better.69 I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of under-standing, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. Where he cannot understand Holy Scripture, let him glorify God70 and fear for himself.7t But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained in so many senses, critics full of worldly learning should restrain themselves from attacking as ignorant and uncultured these utterances that have been made to nourish all devout souls. Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above.72
But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn. For they are not free to see how sweet is the Lord,73 and they have no hunger on the Sabbath. And thus they are idle, though they have permission from the Lord to pluck the ears of grain and to work them in their hands and grind them and win-now them until they arrive at the nourishing kernel.74

CHAPTER 21

The advantage of studying Scripture even when the meaning of the author cannot be found for certain.
41. Someone will say: "What have you brought out with all the threshing of this treatise? What kernel have you revealed? What have you winnowed? Why does everything seem to lie hidden under questions? Adopt one of the many interpretations which you maintained were possible." To such a one my answer is that I have arrived at a nourishing kernel in that I have learnt that a man is not in any difficulty in making a reply according to his faith which he ought to make to those who try to defame our Holy Scripture. When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will so cling to our Mediator, "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,"75 that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion. When we read the inspired books in the light of this wide variety of true doctrines which are drawn from a few words and founded on the firm basis of Catholic belief, let us choose that one which appears as certainly the meaning intended by the author. But if this is not clear, then at least we should choose an interpretation in keeping with the context of Scripture and in harmony with our faith. But if the meaning cannot be studied and judged by the context of Scripture, at least we should choose only that which our faith demands. For it is one thing to fail to recognize the primary meaning of the writer, and another to depart from the norms of religious belief. If both these difficulties are avoided, the reader gets full profit from his reading. Failing that, even though the writer's intention is uncertain, one will find it useful to extract an interpretation in harmony with our faith.76

[emphasis added]

Click to expand...

My highlights are in red.

Would you agree with Augustine that parts of Genesis have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought? What about his claim: But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained in so many senses..? Augustine tells us that there are many different ways of understanding the word of Genesis. Any TE would agree with that, not YECs though. They say there is only one possible interpretation, six literal days.

Augustine goes on to show how deal with secular science that seems to contradict scripture. He gives two situations. When the pagan ideas are based on glib talk of false philosophy rather than reliable evidence, then you stick to what seem the best interpretation based on you understanding doctrine context and the authors intent.

But when they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. How? Because there are other interpretations of scripture that don't contradict the evidence.

Once science produced reliable evidence of the age of the earth, and common descent, which it has in abundance, the responsibility of the church is to adopt the interpretations of Genesis that are in agreement, or at least don't contradict the scientific evidence.

archaeologist said:

i am well aware of that, that is why i prefaced it with comments.

Click to expand...

The same comment that prefaced the quote on the Christian Answer website? Unless of course you actually wrote that article.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c011.html
The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.
Professor Barr said,

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."​

Click to expand...

The preface does not explain the context of the letter, but simply adds to the distortion of the out of context quotation that ignores Barr's own explanation of why he says this.

though i see no credible rebuttal to dislodge it, when you get one let me know.

Click to expand...

I was suggesting you provide the complete text of the letter instead of the usual YEC extract so we can actually see what Barr is talking about. You gave the quote, you should provide the context. Don't expect us to do all the leg work.

why is it incorrect when Jesus, Paul and other writers all attest to its literal writing? i am consistant with all the passages of the bible which talk about creation. here is a link for you to read

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...searchtype=all

are you saying that all the biblical writers & Jesus are wrong?

Click to expand...

Where do Jesus and Paul attest a literal interpretation of Genesis? And what has a word search for 'create' got to do with it?

archaeologist said:

for the latter-- when did i claim God did it according to my personal values? when i became a christian i accepted God's word. i and no one else have the authority to change them so if God says 6 days--guess what--it is 6 days.

the only people i see changing scripture to their personal values are those who want to pursue their own line of thinking and alternatives to the passage.

my personal values--that is a laugh.

such an accusation belongs in a bar and hurled at those who play at christianity. we believe God thus we believe His words. has nothing to do with our personal values but the recognizing that we must change NOT God's words.

Click to expand...

Here's a friendly demonstration of what Deamiter means when he attacks your "personal values".

Suppose (per imposibile!) that I was God.

Suppose that I want to teach my believers some truths about Myself.

In particular, I want to tell them that I created the world, and that the pagans around them who worship things in the world as if they are gods are wrong.

However, the way in which I actually created the world is far too mysterious for them to understand as yet.

Furthermore, since each following generation will have their very different ideas about what the world is made out of, if I made My story too specific, then each generation which doesn't understand the details of My story would not understand what I was trying to tell them.

Hence, I decide to tell a story which is as simple and universal as possible, which is as understandable as it can be to any non-scientific audience and which isn't intended as a scientific or historical guide.

... would you not agree that I would have the right to write My story that way?

And would you not agree that someone who insisted that My story was meant to be taken scientifically and historically, even if I had never intended it to, would be putting his or her own personal values about what text means above My own?

shernren said:

And would you not agree that someone who insisted that My story was meant to be taken scientifically and historically, even if I had never intended it to, would be putting his or her own personal values about what text means above My own?

Click to expand...

Hi shernren
Isn't this what this thread is about? This thread was opened with the concept that creation was beyond the scope of science, and so I would conclude the idea being Genesis can NOT be interpreted as scientific in spite of the fact many try to explain HOW God created all things.

But on the other hand, it need not be allegorical. Those early people had no problem understanding the fact that God made the heavens and earth. There is no allegory intended. If he wanted to explain the complex structure and mechanics of a cell, yeah, he may have required some really good illustrations.

Regards,
FM

archaeologist said:

actually, i do not have the whole letter, just that quote. since it was written, i am sure that has changed though.

Click to expand...

You are sure what has changed?

If you are going to cut and paste YEC quote mines, you should really check the full context. The full text of the letter is available on the internet, but YEC sites just paste the extract.

[The same comment that prefaced the quote on the Christian Answer website? Unless of course you actually wrote that article/QUOTE]
nope. i said something to the effect, 'i have a famous quote...' might have been in a preliminary post when i was at work.

Click to expand...

You previous post is hardly a preface, nor does it answer the problem I raised of YEC sites providing only a selected portion of Barr's letter.

amazing, i posted the link so you would find it easily and you still have to ask me. start at the mark ref. and keep reading.

Click to expand...

Are we supposed to guess which quotes you think show us Jesus and Paul supporting a literal interpretation of Genesis? Quote the actual references and tell us why you think they mean Genesis was being interpreted literally.

talk about pulling out of context. i place two chapters there and you still cherry pick.

Click to expand...

You just cut and pasted the next section as if it backed you point up. I high lighted key points and showed their relevance to our discussion.

but those aren't in agreeance with scripture nor are they reasonable for they contradict what God said. there is no common descent, it is pure inferrence and conjecture. you cannot prove it true.

Click to expand...

Science does not deal in proof, just in evidence that supports or contradicts a theory. The evidence supporting the age of the earth and common descent is very strong. Nor does this evidence contradict what God says. Read what Augustine said. There are many ways to interpret Genesis. The evidence just contradicts one of the interpretations, a wrong interpretation.

besides,augustine was not one of the men God used to write the Bible nor are we instructed to listen to him thus whatever he says, we can ignore.

he may have been a late church father but :

the bold word adds reason to doubt his position. we are not bound by what he says as he was not divinely inspired.

Click to expand...

Deamiter quoted Augustine after you quoted Matthew Henry. I don't think he was divinely inspired either.

The problem is we so often get our interpretation of scripture, not from the bible, but from tradition. Men tell us what scripture is supposed to mean and how we are to interpret it. At least Augustine recognised that there are different ways of understanding scripture.

we are bound by scripture and we can't change one word to fit our desires or comfort zone. science cannot change one word either as it was never granted that authority by God.

Click to expand...

Science never changes a word of scripture, however it has in the past show some interpretation to be wrong. It contradicted the flat earth cosmology of some Christians in Augustine's day and it changed the church's interpretation of geocentric passages during the Reformation. That is exactly what Augustine said. There are different interpretation of scripture and strong scientific evidence can show us which interpretations are wrong.

one must consider the source, the structure of the source, the methods of the source, the beliefs of the source, etc., before accepting anything it says. if one blindly accepts science then they are allowing themselves to be deceived for science is is not allowing God to be in the picture:

"in the words of Stanford materials scientist richard bube: Scienceis a wayof knowing based upon human interpretation of publicly obtained sense data through interaction with the physical world...science has both a theoretical component and an experimental component.
bube added that although science provides partial insughts into some part of the universe, it 'does not answer many questions of fundamental importance, and does not give us an absolute understanding of anything'"
-pg. 47, being a Christian in Science

do you see God in there anywhere? with God and the genesis account, we have ALL the answers. SO why would you want to use such a limited field to investigate what is out of its reach?

Click to expand...

Genesis tells us that God placed lights in the firmament of heaven. Does that give you all the answers? Does it tell you the earth rotates and orbits the sun? Does it tell you the inverse square gravitational law that governs the motion of the solar system? Does it tell you of the nuclear fusion in the sun producing its light or that the moon only reflects the light of the sun?

Is God mentioned in any of these physical laws and processes? Does that negate the science?

Click to expand...

Digit said:

The problem is that you need to reconcile these things with how the NT describes them, and they are there used in a literal sense. Adam and Eve were literal, real people.

Matthew 19:44
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
Mark 10:6
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Well first off, in the beginning God created heaven and earth, and it was only on the sixth day that he made a male and at an unspecified time after that he made a female. In fact when God saw that Adam was alone he first brought him animals hoping they would suffice. It was after he realized they did not that he made Eve. So it seems that Jesus is calling God a liar. Regardless if one is literalist or a non-literalist both can see that Jesus is referring to the beginning of humanity. The verse doesn't work too well if you are implying that he is referring to a literal Adam and Eve.

Do you think they are literal people or symbolic people they are talking about?

Click to expand...

Well, even from the literalist perspective it's quite symbolic don't you think? because God didn't make Adam and Eve simultaneously nor in the beginning?

Luke 3:38
38 the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Real people descended from a real Adam and Eve, they have geneologies and they are correct. Their geneologies would be odd if the first man was symbolic:

Click to expand...

I've addressed this question in another post, so I am just going to cut and paste here:

Adam signifies the time when Yahweh made himself known to mankind. The time before this period is one that the Jewish tradition does not recognize. It's sort of like tracing your own family lineage, you start with your mother, then her mother, then her mother, then her mother....etc.....and some point you find a stop where her mother is a blur, is not present, where she does not take the form of one person, but mothers. The Gospels similarly trace Jesus' lineage to the time Yahweh made himself known to mankind.

Adam's name even means mankind, as was addressed in the previous post of mine.

Romans 5:14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Click to expand...

Adam and Eve is centered around the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, which from the literal perspective of the many becomes quite irrelevant, but from the allegorical perspective the meaning is quite important and profound.

Moses demonstrates the nature of sin, that sin only exists when one has Knowledge of Good and Bad. Moses even goes on a bit further to explain this revelation, as saying that man has become like the Gods when he obtained this knowledge. A literalist and a nonliteralist, even an atheist can both understand that sin/bad/evil enters the world when we are given/acquire a moral conscience, a knowledge of Good and Bad. Cain could have easily slain Abel to show the literalist entrance of sin. The reason why Moses does not use this is because he is not concerned with the act; he is concerned with the conscious, the acquiring of that understanding of what is good and what is bad. Sin enters the world when one inquires the knowledge of sin, no one will argue this--believer or unbeliever alike.

1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

Click to expand...

I don't see any conflict here between an allegorical or literal view of Adam. In fact if one wanted to engage in some stretching (as juvenism likes to put it), when Paul speaks of the dust of the earth he is referring to evolutionary process that led to Man, and instead of giving a seminar on cells, natural selection, and genetics, he just summed that period up to the dust evolving to man. Now I don't buy this, but I'm just using it to show you that no conflict exists between a literal or nonliteral reading.

1 Timothy 2:13,14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Click to expand...

It is interesting that you brought up this verse and then go on to say:

Sure, it's easy enough to take one thing out of context

Click to expand...

Let's read the verse in context:

A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

Click to expand...

I should have used these verses to condemn my female Sunday school teacher to tell her that she does not have the authority to teach me because she is a woman. How many women today are teaching men? Joyce Myers comes to mind, the wives of nearly every big name minister from Billy Graham, to John Hagee. If no one is following the instructions of the passage, then why even bring the Adam and Eve portion into it?

But let's look more closely at what 1 Timothy 2 is saying. Here Paul is saying that it was Eve who sinned and not Adam, yet in the verses you brought before, Paul seems to be saying that Adam brought sin into the world while this verse says Eve did?

The verses here are also inconsistent with Paul's egalitarian views of women throughout the rest of his writing, where he praises female church leaders such as the Deacon Phoebe in Romans, and the Apostle Junia.

Let's look at the scholar's take on 1 Timothy:

"most modern scholars, beginning in the nineteenth century, have concluded that the author could not have been Paul, citing various and serious problems in associating it therewith." (from the wikipedia article of 1 Timothy)"

Click to expand...

Bible.org has a good article on it as well.

The verse is used to oppress the voice of women in Christianity, and if you are not advocating that position then the use of Adam and Eve in the passage are irrelevant. Individuals who do support the oppression of women's voices in the church, do not need the Adam and Eve portion to justify it, they would be convinced by the "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet" bit. The use of Adam and Eve does little or nothing to sway opinions; it does not matter if they are literal or not.

We've already been over the whole "day" issue, and I've said you cannot take it symbolically as it's the first use of day in the account, and we've already seen there are two meanings for day, that of daylight and also a normal 24 hour day. If it's millions of years, then that begs the question, what is night?

Click to expand...

Crawfish addressed the whole day business already. I hope at this point you have figured out the error of the above assumption.

Sure, it's easy enough to take one thing out of context and say it's not literal, but it's a real problem when other's reference them in a literal way.

Click to expand...

Well, I think I just showed you how an allegorical or literal way justifies the references all the same. Look at Christ and his parables; how about the Good Samaritan story. He does not even refer to it as a parable. Now answer me Digit, does it make a difference if the events were historical or fictional? The point is made nonetheless. I've shown you how the point is made nonetheless from an allegorical perspective with the other verses you brought to me as well. But I'm curious as to how you feel when writers of the Bible reference other stories of the Bible allegorically? We have already seen this with the Tree of Life, but how about people? Ezekiel 16 uses an illusion to Abraham's servant and Rebekah at the well, with God playing the role of the servant, and Rebekah as Jerusalem.

There is more to the meaning of the stories of scripture than people who lived thousands of years before. Sometimes the meaning transcends the individuals so much so, that if the people were literal or not is a mute point. In fact, often times individuals who obsess over the literal find themselves so removed from the meaning. While some are out there exploring the Mountains of Arafat for remnants of the Ark, I pick up my Bible and turn the page to Abraham pleading with God to spare the innocent in Sodom, and read of a God who loved Abraham so much that he thought of hiding what he was about to do from him, but decided that it was best if he knew. I can spend my whole life in such beauty, and you can keep your wood.

archaeologist said:

i asked someone to provide examples of scientists going back in time and it has not been done yet. so i will ask you to do that now please.

knowing that going back in time is an impossibility, one can only conclude that the scientists are looking at the present and assuming that is what it was like in the past.

Click to expand...

Well, since we cannot go back in the past then we must unlock the doors of every prison cell, and set all the captives free.

"It’s often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn’t see it happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That, of course, is nonsense. It’s rather like a detective coming on the scene of a crime, obviously after the crime has been committed, and working out what must have happened by looking at the clues that remain. In the story of evolution, the clues are a billionfold.

There are clues from the distribution of DNA codes throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, of protein sequences, of morphological characters that have been analyzed in great detail. Everything fits with the idea that we have here a simple branching tree. The distribution of species on islands and continents throughout the world is exactly what you’d expect if evolution was a fact. The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly what you would expect if evolution were a fact. There are millions of facts all pointing in the same direction and no facts pointing in the wrong direction."

Digit said:

I think I've lost the plot in this thread now... what are we talking about? (anyone can answer this)

Digit

Click to expand...

I think it's that I'm going straight to hell.

ForumMonk said:

Hi shernren
Isn't this what this thread is about? This thread was opened with the concept that creation was beyond the scope of science, and so I would conclude the idea being Genesis can NOT be interpreted as scientific in spite of the fact many try to explain HOW God created all things.

But on the other hand, it need not be allegorical. Those early people had no problem understanding the fact that God made the heavens and earth. There is no allegory intended. If he wanted to explain the complex structure and mechanics of a cell, yeah, he may have required some really good illustrations.

Regards,
FM

Click to expand...

I think you have it exactly. The early writer's weren't writing allegory; they were writing what they knew, a story to illustrate certain points, wrapped around creation as they perceived it. It wasn't "allegory" to them, but neither was it "facts" as we know them. The story was very literal to them, for the purposes for which it was written.