Lack of Faith in Genesis

[aReformedPatriot]

Do you think that a belief in Evoloution is actually a Lack of Faith in the creation record?

 

[Ave Maria]

Do you think that a belief in Evoloution is actually a Lack of Faith in the creation record?

Personally, I don't feel that it is. I feel that it is more of a difference in interpretation rather than a lack of faith.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Personally, I don't feel that it is. I feel that it is more of a difference in interpretation rather than a lack of faith.

Thats Reading something into the narrative dont you think? When one interprets something differently thier tends to be a certain degree of ambiguity. Its pretty straight forward no?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Do you think that a belief in Evoloution is actually a Lack of Faith in the creation record?

If I interpret Jesus saying "this is my body" as symbolic instead of literal, is that a lack of faith in the gospels?

 

[jbarcher]

Education plays a huge part in interpretation.

 

[pressingon]

Education plays a huge part in interpretation.

Since I've heard that used far too many times as an indirect slam on one side or the other in the creation / evolution debate (although I'm sure that's not your intent), could you clarify?

Do you think that a belief in Evoloution is actually a Lack of Faith in the creation record?

It's my experience that it's generally a matter of faith in the interpretation, both of scripture and of the understanding of physical evidence. Lack of faith really doesn't seem to be applicable, as faith is required to take either side (faith that whichever interpretation you choose is correct).

Note: this may be more topical for the Origins Theology forum, although it would probably turn into an extended debate there rather than just personal observations and opinions.

 

[Ave Maria]

If I interpret Jesus saying "this is my body" as symbolic instead of literal, is that a lack of faith in the gospels?

Good point. Most Protestants interpret that symbolically. Catholics interpret it literally. Both points are valid in my opinion. All I know is I'll find out how God created everything when I go to Heaven. I honestly don't think he'll condemn me for believing that He used evolution as His tool.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

If I interpret Jesus saying "this is my body" as symbolic instead of literal, is that a lack of faith in the gospels?

No because there are internal factors within the text that can show that it was symbolic. Whereas in the creation story one has to draw from outside sources.

It's my experience that it's generally a matter of faith in the interpretation, both of scripture and of the understanding of physical evidence. Lack of faith really doesn't seem to be applicable, as faith is required to take either side (faith that whichever interpretation you choose is correct).

Note: this may be more topical for the Origins Theology forum, although it would probably turn into an extended debate there rather than just personal observations and opinions.

I post purposefully, its in the baptist forum as I want baptist input.

I agree, in a general sense faith would be required for just about any decision we make. However if one professes sola scriptura and is into thiestic evoloution, wouldnt that in essence show a lack of faith in the word?

Education plays a huge part in interpretation.

I read my bible, i'd say that gives me a pretty good education.

Both points are valid in my opinion.

You seem to be wishy washy on issues that are either one way or the other, which make it seem like self contradiction--unless your a relatavist, then all bets are off with that.

Jam 1:8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

 

[Gold Dragon]

No because there are internal factors within the text that can show that it was symbolic. Whereas in the creation story one has to draw from outside sources.

And many Christians would disagree with you and say that there are more literary clues (internal factors) to the symbology of the creation story than there are to the symbology of the eucharist, including Augustine of Hippo and other early church fathers. Did they not have faith in Genesis? Did they rely on an external theory of evolution which did not exist yet?

Augustine's View of Creation

Also note that words like symbolic, allegorical and even myth do not equate with false. They simply mean non-literal. Psalms that include lots of imagery were not false.

 

[ZiSunka]

Do you think that a belief in Evoloution is actually a Lack of Faith in the creation record?

No, I think it's an over abundance of belief in science. Science says it has all the answers about where we came from, and people are taught evolution in school as if it were a solid fact with no room for doubt or conflicting opinion. But it's just a theory, and theories are unprovable. You can disprove a theory if you have enough data that conflicts with it, but you can never prove it to be true. But in our schools, it is taught as if it were a fact of the same caliber as the sky being blue on a sunny day, that is, indisputable.

But in reality, it takes a lot of blind faith to believe in evolution. There's a whole lot of conjecture and even scientists can't agree on a lot of stuff. Scientific papers often contradict each other on the subject. One group of scientists is absolutely certain that it is right, while the other contradictory group is absolutely certain THEY are right. Fact is, both of them could be wrong.

Until we start teaching our children that evolution is just conjecture, an unprovable theory open to interpretation and interpolation, they are going to continue to believe it as fact and to believe that the Bible is wrong about where we came from.

It's up to parents to teach their children the truth.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Until we start teaching our children that evolution is just conjecture, an unprovable theory open to interpretation and interpolation

We need to teach that about all scientific theory including quantum physics, gravity, the central dogma of biology, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

Science is not provable because it isn't subject to formal logical proofs like mathematics.

Science is not closed dogma and is always open to interpretation and interpolation based on new evidence.

We also need to teach that evolution says nothing about whether God did it or not and doesn't not invalidate the bible.

 

[Crazy Liz]

If I interpret Jesus saying "this is my body" as symbolic instead of literal, is that a lack of faith in the gospels?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gold Dragon again.

 

[ZiSunka]

We need to teach that about all scientific theory including quantum physics, gravity, the central dogma of biology, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

Science is not provable because it isn't subject to formal logical proofs like mathematics.

Science is not closed dogma and is always open to interpretation and interpolation based on new evidence.

We also need to teach that evolution says nothing about whether God did it or not and doesn't not invalidate the bible.

Amen!

Science is absolutely silent on even the question of whether or not God exists. Science can only study of things directly observable and quanitifiable with the senses, and God can't be quantified with the senses, therefore, science can't even have an opinion on whether or not there is a God and how he works.

 

[seebs]

Do you think that a belief in Evoloution is actually a Lack of Faith in the creation record?

No. Faith is not a question of simple intellectual assent to arbitrary claims; it's a question of whether you're willing to give your life over to God. Belief is not the same thing as faith.

The problem here is a subtle case of begging the question; what you are checking for belief in is not merely "the creation record", but "one way of understanding the creation record".

Understanding of creation has varied widely over the millenia. Augustine writes, in his study of the "literal" interpretation of Genesis, that it is clear that all of creation was created at once, and that the use of days is a way to explain in pieces something that was done all at once by God.

Attempts to understand this passage are an ongoing project, and I think some variety in interpretations is to be expected.

 

[seebs]

Amen!

Science is absolutely silent on even the question of whether or not God exists. Science can only study of things directly observable and quanitifiable with the senses, and God can't be quantified with the senses, therefore, science can't even have an opinion on whether or not there is a God and how he works.

Exactly! An important thing here is that this means scientific theories always describe the world without reference to God. That doesn't deny God; it just says "here's what happens when there's no miracles". Science is necessarily silent on the topic of miracles.

 

[Ave Maria]

Exactly! An important thing here is that this means scientific theories always describe the world without reference to God. That doesn't deny God; it just says "here's what happens when there's no miracles". Science is necessarily silent on the topic of miracles.

Exactly!

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Amen!

Science is absolutely silent on even the question of whether or not God exists. Science can only study of things directly observable and quanitifiable with the senses, and God can't be quantified with the senses, therefore, science can't even have an opinion on whether or not there is a God and how he works.

Since everyone is one the 'exactly' band wagon: Exactly!

So, what do the majority of you responding in this thread think? Did God create just as he says in Genesis, or did he use the evoloutionary methods.

In my own opinion, and you can call this stubborn pride or blind faith if you like; I believe the creation record hands down despite any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Did God create just as he says in Genesis,

Yes

or did he use the evoloutionary methods.

Yes

I believe the creation record hands down despite any evidence to the contrary.

I believe the creation record too. And I don't see evidence to the contrary. God's specific revelation of the Bible and his general revelation in nature do not contradict. Evolution is not contrary to the creation record only certain interpretations of that record.

 

[seebs]

So, what do the majority of you responding in this thread think? Did God create just as he says in Genesis, or did he use the evoloutionary methods.

I don't believe God, but rather, the authors of Scripture, tell us the Genesis account. God guided them to make sure it would be edifying, but I don't think He was concerned with the scientific aspects of the story.

 

[In Christ Forever]

Education plays a huge part in interpretation.

I have 2 verses for everyone to look at concerning Genesis and the flood. Revelation shows the destruction of a heaven and earth. Imagine, a prophecy 1000's of years ago verified in revelation, the destuction of a "Great City". How do others see this? God bless.

reve 9: 9 And they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings [was] like the sound of chariots with many horses running into battle. 10 They had tails like scorpions, and there were stings in their tails. Their power [was] to hurt men five months.

Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.


jeremi 46:7 "Who [is] this coming up like a flood, Whose waters move like the rivers? 8 Egypt rises up like a flood, And [its] waters move like the rivers; And he says, 'I will go up [and] cover the earth, I will destroy the city and its inhabitants.' 9 Come up, O horses, and rage, O chariots! And let the mighty men come forth: The Ethiopians and the Libyans who handle the shield, And the Lydians who handle [and] bend the bow.