It seems to me that the creationist argument is just... silly.

[KWCrazy]

God doesn't walk with man in the Garden anymore.

No, last time God came to Earth we nailed Him to a tree. I guess that doesn't exactly extend a warm greeting, now does it?

Our gardens don't have knowledge trees or talking
serpents in them.

I believe we were, in fact, cast out of Eden. Man had a choice to take from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or the tree of life. He chose to know and therefore have responsibility of his actions and to NOT live forever. Considering the consequence to the serpent, I can't blame him for not talking to us since.

In our world new beings are created quite small and tiny.

In fact, they aren't exactly "created" since they are formed from the existing cells of the parents. What IS created is the soul, which can only come from God.

So, it seems, we are not in the Garden world of Adam and Eve.

Toto, we're not in Kansas any more!!

So...while the story is literal, it took place in an entirely different world.

Yeah, that world kinda got washed away in a year long deluge about 5,000 years ago.

 

[Audacious]

Yeah, that world kinda got washed away in a year long deluge about 5,000 years ago.

Geologists and geophysicists: apparently, all wrong.

Young Earth Creationism | NCSE

 

[BobRyan]

It doesn't. All evolution tells us is the history of the diversification of species of the world so it isn't at odds with Christianity

Until you read the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Incorrect. I am saying it is non-literal.

Well.. then it is not true - since the "kind of literature that it is " -- is a historic account to be taken at face value - a point that even the Hebrew and OT scholars of all world class universities seem to understand such that the T.E. necessary fiction trying to bend-wrench the text to fit the usages of evolutionism - simply is not taken seriously by that group of experts

At least according to James Barr.

in the same way Bible believing Christians do not take that conflict-of-interest solution by the T.E. group seriously. The meaning of the text in the "kind of literature that it is" -- is way too obvious for the games that T.E. needs to play with the text.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So far, NOBODY has been able to demonstrate how it could be "figurative" with the Scriptures. They can only reject what is clearly written. And why? To believe that the science of man has supremacy to the will of God? No, sorry. God could create another identical universe tomorrow.

historic narratives - of this historic account variety are not figurative. It is a fact based on the "kind of literature that it is".

And a point that the Hebrew scholars and OT scholars of all world class universities see clearly "in the text" itself.

T.E. "need" to bend the text to a fiction or myth category is also "clearly seen by all".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Audacious]

Well.. then it is not true - since the "kind of literature that it is " -- is a historic account to be taken at face value - a point that even the Hebrew and OT scholars of all world class universities seem to understand such that the T.E. necessary fiction trying to bend-wrench the text to fit the usages of evolutionism - simply is not taken seriously by that group of experts

At least according to James Barr.

in the same way Bible believing Christians do not take that conflict-of-interest solution by the T.E. group seriously. The meaning of the text in the "kind of literature that it is" -- is way too obvious for the games that T.E. needs to play with the text.


in Christ,

Bob

Can you find any polls of bible scholars working in universities? If not, where the heck are you getting this information from?

It's really impossible to research biblical historicity and come up with the conclusion "the Bible is 100% literally true", given the massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the complete lack of evidence for a biblical flood. And that's just a small portion of Genesis's proven historical inaccuracies.

 

[BobRyan]

We had some T.E. posts trying to 'wish this away' recently - but the facts remain.


Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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 Genesis 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; . . . 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. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

He is of course - merely stating the obvious when it comes to the text and "the kind of literature that it is".

It just that in his case - not being the every day Christian variety T.E. --- he has no conflict of interest driving him to "bend the text" to fit some outside agenda.

Given the glaringly obvious point then - there are only two choices.

1. deny the historicity of the Bible as Barr does.

2. Believe the Bible - as Bible believing Christians do.

BOTH of these options are far more straightforward and logical - than the T.E. option of "pretending" we can't see that the text is written as a historic account.

 

[Audacious]

That's one source, citing one person; it's hardly a scientific poll or survey on the matter, and just proves that the people that this individual spent time around in 1984 in his field agreed with his assessment. That isn't really surprising, because people tend to spend time with people who agree with them.

With no objective source, you don't really have a case -- it's just conjecture.

 

[BobRyan]

That's one source, citing one person; .

maybe you can "wish" the fact away.

 

[Willtor]

Well.. then it is not true - since the "kind of literature that it is " -- is a historic account to be taken at face value - a point that even the Hebrew and OT scholars of all world class universities seem to understand such that the T.E. necessary fiction trying to bend-wrench the text to fit the usages of evolutionism - simply is not taken seriously by that group of experts

At least according to James Barr.

in the same way Bible believing Christians do not take that conflict-of-interest solution by the T.E. group seriously. The meaning of the text in the "kind of literature that it is" -- is way too obvious for the games that T.E. needs to play with the text.


in Christ,

Bob

Wrong again. There is a long tradition of taking Genesis figuratively in the Church -- long before the theory of evolution.

 

[Audacious]

maybe you can "wish" the fact away.

You have a single individual in a nonclinical environment as a source. Sorry, but that isn't a fact; facts require much more substantiation than "some bible scholar said this thirty years ago in a private letter".

Anecdotes are not evidence.

 

[KWCrazy]

Can you find any polls of bible scholars working in universities?

How well did Jesus get on with the "Biblical scholars" of the day?
Was he not crucified because of the ones who were convinced that they alone knew all the answers when it came to God's law? As I recall, he called them out repeatedly on their lack of knowledge of the Scriptures.

It's really impossible to research biblical historicity and come up with the conclusion "the Bible is 100% literally true", given the massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the complete lack of evidence for a biblical flood.

Is it any less impossible for a crucified man to raise again from the dead on the third day?

 

[KWCrazy]

That's one source, citing one person;

Actually, Jesus taught that the Scriptures were accurate. He's the one I believe. All others are merely corroborating the previously ascertained truth.

 

[godenver1]

Actually, Jesus taught that the Scriptures were accurate. He's the one I believe. All others are merely corroborating the previously ascertained truth.

Who said non-historical means non-accurate?

 

[Blue Wren]

When I did a search of Colin Patterson's name to locate this post that I wrote for you last summer to explain with evidence how it had been misrepresented and misappropriated to the dismay of him and his family until his passing, I saw pages worth of posts you'd written with the same quote, even after I provided this for you:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7840061-8/#post66268103


Why do you persist in disseminating the quote on Christian Forums when you have been made aware how misleading it is? Could you please not copy and paste it here again?

This is a false dichotomy: "either X and Y are both literally true, or neither are!" The fact is, there are other options than these two; for instance, one can be literally true and the other be figurative -- a very common stance among Christians, and, in fact, Bible scholars. Hell, St Augustine thought that Genesis was literal, and that was before Biblical historicity and historical dating were even things.

You're needlessly connecting two events which are theologically connected, but don't have to be literally so. There are parallels, but that doesn't mean that one depends upon the other in order to be literally true.

Can you find any polls of bible scholars working in universities? If not, where the heck are you getting this information from?

It's really impossible to research biblical historicity and come up with the conclusion "the Bible is 100% literally true", given the massive amounts of evidence for evolution and the complete lack of evidence for a biblical flood. And that's just a small portion of Genesis's proven historical inaccuracies.

Who said non-historical means non-accurate?

 

[Willtor]

Who said non-historical means non-accurate?

Right on.

Years ago, I was debating this issue with someone on these forums, and I brought up the question of the parables and asked whether they were factual accounts. He didn't believe a thing could be both true and non-historical, so he argued the view that the parables were factual accounts that Jesus was relating.

Separating "true" from "historical" is hard for some people, and I think the YEC organizations make it harder.

 

[KWCrazy]

Who said non-historical means non-accurate?

The Scriptures teach a history you refuse to believe. Genesis is presented as a factual, historical account; not a parable. The events of Genesis are referenced as historical fact throughout the Bible. Your rejection of the Scriptures doesn't make them any less accurate.

 

[Audacious]

How well did Jesus get on with the "Biblical scholars" of the day?
Was he not crucified because of the ones who were convinced that they alone knew all the answers when it came to God's law? As I recall, he called them out repeatedly on their lack of knowledge of the Scriptures.

Today's bible scholars are very different from the Pharisees; for one thing, they weren't so much scholars as they were the Jewish equivalent of crazy, extremist preachers, and for another, they didn't have anywhere near the resources we do today that we use in understanding the Bible. We've got a ton of knowledge and applications that nobody could have had 2,000 years ago.

Is it any less impossible for a crucified man to raise again from the dead on the third day?

Jesus was an exception to the general rule -- that's the idea of miracles (they don't happen every day.). Yes, miracles happen, but that doesn't discredit the vast majority of knowledge we have on the topic of how physics and the universe as a whole normally work.

The Scriptures teach a history you refuse to believe. Genesis is presented as a factual, historical account; not a parable. The events of Genesis are referenced as historical fact throughout the Bible. Your rejection of the Scriptures doesn't make them any less accurate.

Your rejection of facts and the scientific method doesn't make them less accurate. And, unlike hermeneutics, facts aren't up to argument. Science is science.

Let's start with the basics: radiometric dating of the earth's age; (Source: 1997 US Geological Survey); the evidence for evolution (Source: Berkeley.edu); the predictive value of evolution (Source: National Center for Science Education); the big bang (Source: NASA); the predictive value of the big bang (Source: Berkeley.edu); the fact that humans have been around for at least 200,000 years (Source: Berkeley.edu), and that we certainly did not originate from one man and one woman (this is just not how genetics works)... I can go on and on.

You're literally rejecting every piece of evidence that doesn't agree with your nonscientific preconceptions (and it's a lot of evidence.). Isn't it at least possible that you're just wrong? One of the good things about science is that it doesn't function on baseless presuppositions, and for some reason that seems to be your main problem with it.

 

[KWCrazy]

... they didn't have anywhere near the resources we do today that we use in understanding the Bible.

The only resource you need to understand the Bible is the Holy Spirit. The word of God was not revealed to the educated; but to the faithful.

Yes, miracles happen, but that doesn't discredit the vast majority of knowledge we have on the topic of how physics and the universe as a whole normally work.

Nobody ever said they did. Natural law does not apply to the supernatural. It certainly had no authority of the creation, which established natural laws as the physical properties of the universe God created.

Your rejection of facts and the scientific method doesn't make them less accurate.

Foolish assumption. I understand science. I also understand that the physical laws of the universe do not apply to its Creator. If the Lord said he evolved man over billions of years it would be a fact. he said He created the world in six days and created man from the dust of the earth, so THAT is a fact.

And, unlike hermeneutics, facts aren't up to argument. Science is science.

There is no scientifically viable explanation for the origination of anything from nothingness. Science needs a cause. God was the first cause, so the creation fits more with the laws of science than evolution does. After all, increasing complexity has never been observed.

Let's start with the basics: radiometric dating of the earth's age;

Invalid argument, because God created a mature planet. Re-read Genesis. Everything was created intact, down to trees bearing fruit on day four.

we certainly did not originate from one man and one woman

Jesus disagrees. Therefore, he's right and you're wrong.

You're literally rejecting every piece of evidence that doesn't agree with your nonscientific preconceptions

No, I disagree with your complete misunderstanding of what science is and what it is not. Question to you. If God created a duck and handed it to you, how old would the duck be? It had to have been a duckling first, right? No, God can create a duck. He created a world. Accept it or reject it. It has nothing whatever to do with science, which is the study of the physical nature of that world.

Isn't it at least possible that you're just wrong?

It's not the least bit possible that God is wrong.

 

[godenver1]

The Scriptures teach a history you refuse to believe. Genesis is presented as a factual, historical account; not a parable. The events of Genesis are referenced as historical fact throughout the Bible. Your rejection of the Scriptures doesn't make them any less accurate.

How is it presented as historical?

By the way, a reference doesn't automatically entail historical account. If I reference the tale of the tortoise and the hare to teach humility or patience should my listeners treat it as historical?