Leaning TE, Questioning a Lot

[introextrogal]

First post here. I am thankful to have found this forum and TE thread, in particular. Apologies for my novel...I'm searching.

I have believed the Big Bang Theory to be the starting point of creation for a good while. Most recently I mentioned it in regard to creation in a small group at my church. When the silence seemed to last an eternity, I realized that I was alone in my thoughts amongst my fellow believers. I truly had no idea that modern day Christians didn't believe what science seems to point to as a very probable/explainable solution to how this universe started. I was admittedly a little embarrassed because I felt that I had just made some radical statement that sounded heretical. I'm aware of the small sampling, but I've realized that my church as a whole is more this way.

So, I decided to embark on a journey of knowledge through prayer and research. I feel like my eyes are crossing with all I've learned and read. My main point to learning more on my narrow knowledge is to educate myself in my ignorance and be the mother that God desires me to be. I have a very precocious son who will need to be aware of ALL the history, science, etc., behind the Bible and faith, the universe, other religions, etc.

I am not as intellectual as many of you out there, but in my simple brain I have come to several conclusions through my research while I'm still learning:

1) The mythology shaping the Noah flood story are very bothersome to me...I read all the stories. It bothers me. I start feeling at this point that yes, possibly Noah came first and it was orally handed down, but Noah wasn't a Hebrew. So did Ham pass it down? And through that did the other societies borrow their version of the myth?

2) I also have a really hard time with the fact that we really can't find evidence of a global flood. Yes, there are some buried trees in areas of the world, but the overall scientific and historical data does NOT show geological evidence as far as I can see.

3) This is the point I start wondering if Noah is more allegorical...and if it is I have to face the fact that it's okay. I am struggling with this. I know in my heart of hearts God exists due to too many personal moments that are unexplainable to someone who doesn't have faith.

4) I first thought I adhered to a more OE view without the evolution aspect until I really started researching logical scientific explanations for homo erectus, neanderthals, dinosaurs, etc. I couldn't really sort them out in a satisfactory way with just an OE viewpoint. I needed to know the why and how behind it all, not solely relying on scripture which seems to be confusing in such issues as creation. My studies reopened the idea of evolution, b/c, frankly, I was always taught that it was so wrong, that I never seeked it out to see if it could be right. After reviewing in my limited knowledge and understanding the research and findings out there throughout history, I realized that I must accept this to better understand our world. It was a bit of a no-brainer for me. Kind of like the Big Bang view.

5) My other problem is with so much of the Adam and Eve story. I won't even go there. So I have been sitting here in depression, thinking that since I'm finding scientific data to make the most sense to me, matched with historical events, then I must not be a "true" Christian.

So I just prayed. This cannot be true b/c I believe in Jesus. I believe that most of the Bible happened. I believe that it is God's inspired word. I am trying to understand all the history behind our Bible and how we got the current one we have now. I am trying to grasp why it matters so much to people if schools teach evolution and at the same time, while so many Christians think this view isn't Christian. I am a Christian. That's the thing. I can't explain my relationship to God other than I'm well aware that I'm nothing without Him.

How do most of you TE out there explain where a more allegorical OT stops and a more historically accurate one starts? Do you find you have to keep your views to yourself because they seem controversial? (This part bothers me a lot). Thank you.

 

[Keachian]

Hi, and welcome to the forums, may God grant you wisdom and strengthen your faith while you wrestle with these ideas.

1) The mythology shaping the Noah flood story are very bothersome to me...I read all the stories. It bothers me. I start feeling at this point that yes, possibly Noah came first and it was orally handed down, but Noah wasn't a Hebrew. So did Ham pass it down? And through that did the other societies borrow their version of the myth?

Well Shem was the patriarch of the Hebrews after Noah and in terms of Noah being or not being Hebrew, Jewish Theology, especially that of Late Second Temple Judaism viewed Hebrew as the original language of humanity and so would have claimed Noah as one of their own in that he would have spoken their language and was faithful to their God and even was in Covenant relationship with that same God.

2) I also have a really hard time with the fact that we really can't find evidence of a global flood. Yes, there are some buried trees in areas of the world, but the overall scientific and historical data does NOT show geological evidence as far as I can see.

I don't believe the Scriptures demand a global flood ha'erets (that is the earth) can refer to a locality, it is only when it is paired with ha'shamayim (the heavens) that we see an application to universality

3) This is the point I start wondering if Noah is more allegorical...and if it is I have to face the fact that it's okay. I am struggling with this. I know in my heart of hearts God exists due to too many personal moments that are unexplainable to someone who doesn't have faith.

Well allegorical interpretations of Noah date back to the Apostles and Christ himself who use it as a teaching aid to talk about Christ's return to judge the world, I'm not that fussed either way.

4) I first thought I adhered to a more OE view without the evolution aspect until I really started researching logical scientific explanations for homo erectus, neanderthals, dinosaurs, etc. I couldn't really sort them out in a satisfactory way with just an OE viewpoint. I needed to know the why and how behind it all, not solely relying on scripture which seems to be confusing in such issues as creation. My studies reopened the idea of evolution, b/c, frankly, I was always taught that it was so wrong, that I never seeked it out to see if it could be right. After reviewing in my limited knowledge and understanding the research and findings out there throughout history, I realized that I must accept this to better understand our world. It was a bit of a no-brainer for me. Kind of like the Big Bang view.

Let's get some categories sorted first of all, Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism (my preferred term) is most definitely a form of Creationism, everything that is is because God determined that it should be, to be more specific Evolutionary Creationism is a sub-category of Old Earth Creationism, for an Evolutionary Creationist I am considerably conservative in my approach to reconciling the deep time of modern scientific theory to the creation accounts, I view Gen 1 as exalted prose designed and carefully constructed as a monotheistic apology and declaration of God as Sovereign and his desire to be Immanuel and Gen 2 as the opening of God's covenant relationships with man, starting from creation.

5) My other problem is with so much of the Adam and Eve story. I won't even go there. So I have been sitting here in depression, thinking that since I'm finding scientific data to make the most sense to me, matched with historical events, then I must not be a "true" Christian.

So I just prayed. This cannot be true b/c I believe in Jesus. I believe that most of the Bible happened. I believe that it is God's inspired word. I am trying to understand all the history behind our Bible and how we got the current one we have now. I am trying to grasp why it matters so much to people if schools teach evolution and at the same time, while so many Christians think this view isn't Christian. I am a Christian. That's the thing. I can't explain my relationship to God other than I'm well aware that I'm nothing without Him.

The Apostle Paul describes the true defining feature of Christianity as an encounter with the Risen Lord that gives us hope for our union with him in the New Life (1 Cor esp. chps 2, 15, also Gal) from what you describe you have that, I would encourage you to continue to seek after those encounters and let him transform you.

How do most of you TE out there explain where a more allegorical OT stops and a more historically accurate one starts? Do you find you have to keep your views to yourself because they seem controversial? (This part bothers me a lot). Thank you.

Being somewhat more conservative on it (part of it was coming to a point where it didn't really matter to me and seeking to identify with my Church for discipline and other reasons made me go more conservative) I don't find I have to so I'm possibly not the best person to answer this for you, I find that other parts of my Theology can be somewhat more controversial in my Church than this, in those areas I have sometimes kept my views to myself but I think they do tend to come out. I think in some ways being open in our faith is what the Church is all about, we are all on a journey and the end is Christ.

 

[introextrogal]

Thank you, Progmunk. I appreciate your responses. I am going to have to sort out my views on all I've learned in relation to my understanding of the Bible through prayer and reading. I hope to also gain more knowledge on the differentiating scientific terms. I'm a work in process in all this.

Eloquence is not my strength, which is very obvious from my OP. However, what I wanted to convey is that I realized through my Big Bang comment that I don't hold a common opinion within my church. This concerned me in thinking of my children, in particular my son. If the church teaches YEC, along with my fellow Christians that I surround myself with, I foresee atheism or agnosticism in the future of my children. I see that in the future of many children if science is blatantly ignored. There is no way my child will just take the simpleton approach to science and religion for which I'm glad, but I'm also very concerned if we keep a dichotomy of religion vs. science.

Finding little holes in years of of research is such a weak argument IMO. So while I'm confused with the examples (and others not mentioned) that I wrote, I cannot imagine what my children will feel like if they learn what science shows to be true one day, yet as their mother, I cannot back it up correctly with the Bible. Furthermore, if they attend a church that looks down at the data. I'm bothered. It seems like we (Christians--me recently) are being ignorant.

And thank you for the thoughtful response on Noah. My mistake on "Ham" instead of "Shem."

As for my personal relationship with Christ, thank you for writing about Paul's words. I should clarify that I am a Christian through my belief of Jesus Christ as my Savior. I just felt lost when I came to my conclusion because the initial things I was finding on Christian sites basically were calling it a form of blasphemy even though Jesus is the way to salvation, thankfully. I felt like what I was reading about accepting evolution/science as true while simultaneously claiming to be a Christian was viewed as having a neutered down version of theology.

I'm finding the history of Christianity fascinating at the same time, learning throughout history how we have changed how we understand certain Bible books, stories and how politics, etc., can shape the time in history of biblical views. Ex. Did Darwin's theory spark up the rebuttal of a YE view to be so prevalent among current evangelicals or has this been the main view throughout history?

 

[Keachian]

Thank you, Progmunk. I appreciate your responses. I am going to have to sort out my views on all I've learned in relation to my understanding of the Bible through prayer and reading. I hope to also gain more knowledge on the differentiating scientific terms. I'm a work in process in all this.

Eloquence is not my strength, which is very obvious from my OP. However, what I wanted to convey is that I realized through my Big Bang comment that I don't hold a common opinion within my church. This concerned me in thinking of my children, in particular my son. If the church teaches YEC, along with my fellow Christians that I surround myself with, I foresee atheism or agnosticism in the future of my children. I see that in the future of many children if science is blatantly ignored. There is no way my child will just take the simpleton approach to science and religion for which I'm glad, but I'm also very concerned if we keep a dichotomy of religion vs. science.

Finding little holes in years of of research is such a weak argument IMO. So while I'm confused with the examples (and others not mentioned) that I wrote, I cannot imagine what my children will feel like if they learn what science shows to be true one day, yet as their mother, I cannot back it up correctly with the Bible. Furthermore, if they attend a church that looks down at the data. I'm bothered. It seems like we (Christians--me recently) are being ignorant.

Yes, this is my concern in regards to teaching young children that there is a divide between the Christian position and having in general a reasoned and thought out faith. I would like many Christians before me point to Christ's call for us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:29) as a call for us to be reflective on our faith and the world around us, this does in fact mean engaging with the popular culture of the day which unfortunately due to developments in philosophy in the 18th and 19th centuries largely sees scientific and religious explanations as an either/or conundrum. History of Science and early Philosophy of Science is where I looked for an understanding of why theism and naturalism can coexist happily, even more so for the Christian, and though these questions ultimately come to epistemology very few evangelical churches actually deal with it in their catechesis of believers.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Don't worry introextrogal, your not alone

I to am in your same boat, being in a Church in which my views of evolutionary creationism are not the majority (probably most people there are YEC's, im sure some OEC's as well, though im pretty sure that i'm not the only TE in the Church).

Though unlike you I don't have the "guts" to talk about the Big Bang, the earth being 4.5 billion years old, evolution, etc, in front of my church group (even when evolution is brought up sometimes and criticized, thankfully criticizing of modern science does not happen much in the areas of Church I participate it)

I do hope your not put down in your church for your different views/interpretation of certain parts of the Bible.

This is an interesting site which you may be interested in which promotes a world in which science and faith should not be enemies, and you can be a true christian while accepting modern science.

BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony

 

[introextrogal]

...this does in fact mean engaging with the popular culture of the day which unfortunately due to developments in philosophy in the 18th and 19th centuries largely sees scientific and religious explanations as an either/or conundrum. History of Science and early Philosophy of Science is where I looked for an understanding of why theism and naturalism can coexist happily, even more so for the Christian, and though these questions ultimately come to epistemology very few evangelical churches actually deal with it in their catechesis of believers.

Thank you for sharing your start to understanding. Do you have any books or resources you recommend for learning about the history/early philosophy of science?

You said you were a conservative TE. What exactly did you mean? I read your interpretation of creation best I could understand it, but do you mind elaborating? Lastly, I appreciated your original explanation of the allegorical way in which Jesus and the Apostles taught, however, I'm not understanding where I make the divide in my reading.

For ex: If the serpent didn't really talk, and the story was allegorical (which I tend to think it is), does Adam represent God's first intelligent man? As in the race of modern day humans? (EDIT: I have now read the Adam and Eve forum with excellent answers. The rest of these questions I'm still confused on, though). Are Cain and Abel allegorical as well in the start of sin in action after the fall? Does the story of Noah have an aspect of truth? Do I need to believe that his 3 sons did start the different tribes? Did a donkey talk?

These are my streaming thoughts in trying to justify my newfound knowledge of acceptance with my longtime knowledge of everything is literal in the Bible. Not literally literal, but the commentaries we've come to know as the accepted meaning are 100% true. Lots of ?'s!

 

[introextrogal]

Don't worry introextrogal, your not alone


Though unlike you I don't have the "guts" to talk about the Big Bang, the earth being 4.5 billion years old, evolution, etc, in front of my church group (even when evolution is brought up sometimes and criticized, thankfully criticizing of modern science does not happen much in the areas of Church I participate it)

Thank you for the reply. I'm not sure I had guts. I honestly didn't know that it wasn't a normal train of thought. My husband loves to learn about the universe. We've had many conversations about how brilliant God is in its design. In my naivety I didn't realize that this was a bone of contention within certain churches and christians. I have been in Motherhood mode awhile now with young children, not exercising my brain properly. I don't have a lot of deep conversations with others regarding philosophy, etc., besides my husband. So my bringing up the big bang was nothing more than sharing what I thought everyone knew to be the strongest possibility of God's initial start to the universe.

I'm now more hesitant to say anything. At the same time I don't want my children completely confused that I'm indoctrinating them with some rubbish that's not sound and vice versa for our church. That's another reason I'm here on this forum...to try and learn more about the things I'm not understanding too well. I want my children to be thoughtful, well-informed and more intellectual on these subjects than their mom has been thus far.

I'm excited to check out the website you listed. Thank you!

By the way, I go to a very conservative evangelical church. I like so many aspects about it. There are many aspects I'm not fond of as well.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

For ex: If the serpent didn't really talk, and the story was allegorical (which I tend to think it is), does Adam represent God's first intelligent man? As in the race of modern day humans? (EDIT: I have now read the Adam and Eve forum with excellent answers. The rest of these questions I'm still confused on, though).

That's a good question. When it comes to the topic of Adam, I know that some TE's take him as more of a metaphor for early fallen humanity, instead of as an actual person. However I also know that there are also TE's that accept some form of an Adam and Eve (Catholics, etc) while also accepting evolution (of course that doesn't mean you have to accept like YECers do, that Adam was actually made out of actual dirt, and was a modern human being). So basically all TEers see some amounts of allegory in the Genesis story, though we are divided on when it comes to the topic of Adam and Eve.

My personal opinion, is that I think we can be a fallen species, even if there is no historical adam and eve. Then again im not going to rule out the entire possibility of there being some kind of historical adam and eve.

 

[Keachian]

Thank you for sharing your start to understanding. Do you have any books or resources you recommend for learning about the history/early philosophy of science?

Sorry it was 5 years ago I'm not sure where I would start if I was helping someone

You said you were a conservative TE. What exactly did you mean?

I believe in a literal Adam, history in the Bible for me more or less starts Gen 2

I read your interpretation of creation best I could understand it, but do you mind elaborating?

The core of my understanding of the Creation account rests on its similarities and dissimilarities to other Ancient Near East creation accounts, for this I heartily recommend John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One.

Lastly, I appreciated your original explanation of the allegorical way in which Jesus and the Apostles taught, however, I'm not understanding where I make the divide in my reading.

I fully believe that this is a point of liberty, (as is the rest of the creation debate, but this more so) it should come down to what you are comfortable with, the majority view is Abraham though some will start with Shem, or there are a few others like me who go with Adam

For ex: If the serpent didn't really talk, and the story was allegorical (which I tend to think it is), does Adam represent God's first intelligent man? As in the race of modern day humans? (EDIT: I have now read the Adam and Eve forum with excellent answers. The rest of these questions I'm still confused on, though).

Normally the position with a literal Adam is that he is the first Homo Divina, that is the first human who is a representation of God to creation.

Are Cain and Abel allegorical as well in the start of sin in action after the fall?

Depends on where you draw the line, while I do like and appreciate some of the theology that comes out of the allegorical understandings of these people, I see them as literal persons. So my suggestion may be that you aren't limited to an either/or of understanding these things as literal or appreciating allegorical understandings of Scripture

Does the story of Noah have an aspect of truth? Do I need to believe that his 3 sons did start the different tribes?

Seeing as I would view Noah as a local flood, the answer to both these questions from my perspective is yes.

Did a donkey talk?

Yes.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Intro-etc...

My history in this matter is rather similar to yours.

I grew up in church; starting with 'nursery'. I belonged to the Southern Baptist denomination until I was close to sixty years of age. As a group, they are largely YEC in thought, but it is NOT a demanded requirement for membership. (At least not where I was; congregations can vary.) Just very common.

I was baptized and publicly announced my faith in Jesus when I was nine. Looking back, I haven't had any real 'break' in that (one excursion which is a story in itself) since then.

However, He who Created all made me curious. And at the risk of pride, fairly smart. I wanted to be a scientist of some sort and actually worked as a lawman. Evidence, 'proof' and investigating has been my life. In short, I developed views much as yours; following scientific inquiry and finding the results - in the main - 'reasonable and defensible'. So I have a 'scientific' bent to my thinking.

At the same time - as did you - I found no doubt about the existence of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and my relationship with all of the above. (Pun not intended, but valid.) As you, my departure from 'tradition' has bothered me at times. I really don't think of myself as a rebel or renegade, but find myself - like Luther - unable to do other.

My main path of maintaining functionality is fairly simple.

Science provides the 'how' of things.
God provides the 'why' of things.

I'm an old age Universe type (my God can keep track of all this for a mere 13.7 Billion years). I think it is all here because God decided it all would be here. I think the Big Bang was the mechanism. I don't see that reducing God a bit.

I have no doubt of a flood. Every civilization on Earth has a flood account. In my mind, all the survivors of the flood remembered it and passed it down to their children, so it's no wonder all civilizations have a 'record' of the flood in some form.

Was it 'global'? The event killed off all but the family of Noah. So how many people were on the Earth at the time? If only 150 people existed, the death of 142 would be 'global', would it not? Aside from that, the flood had to occur prior to about 10,000 BC; because there are written references to a 'flood' in the middle east at that time. It might have happened prior to the last Ice Age, ending right around that time.

Does that correspond to the account in the Bible? Yes, close enough. Does it make the YEC faction happy? Nope.

I'm going to quit for right now. Just be aware you are not the only one. Also, don't stop learning about God in all His Persons. Nothing to stifle accusations of not being Christian like knowing God. Concentrate on that.

 

[introextrogal]

My main path of maintaining functionality is fairly simple.

Science provides the 'how' of things.
God provides the 'why' of things.

I have no doubt of a flood. Every civilization on Earth has a flood account. In my mind, all the survivors of the flood remembered it and passed it down to their children, so it's no wonder all civilizations have a 'record' of the flood in some form.

Was it 'global'? The event killed off all but the family of Noah. So how many people were on the Earth at the time? If only 150 people existed, the death of 142 would be 'global', would it not? Aside from that, the flood had to occur prior to about 10,000 BC; because there are written references to a 'flood' in the middle east at that time. It might have happened prior to the last Ice Age, ending right around that time.

Does that correspond to the account in the Bible? Yes, close enough. Does it make the YEC faction happy? Nope.

I'm going to quit for right now. Just be aware you are not the only one. Also, don't stop learning about God in all His Persons. Nothing to stifle accusations of not being Christian like knowing God. Concentrate on that.

Thanks for the intro and for the "you're not alone." I think we had the same childhood, however I was eight when Baptized.

Your thoughts on the flood are what I originally concluded as well, but the part about our native americans having the same tales perplexed me in dealing with the time frame that we commonly think of Noah within (more recent). I didn't understand how the story could have trickled over to Mexico and the USA that quickly. What I like about your train of thought i that it could have happened ages ago. I initially thought this as well but had a really hard time with those genealogies that are written. I'll open my mind back up to that explanation.

Thank you for the last words of wisdom. I will do that for sure.

*****

Thank you also to you guys that posted responses to my questions above. I'm liking that we don't all have to adhere to one interpretation to love the same Creator. I'm loving the Biologos site. So full of info!

Lastly, I told my own mother tonight on the phone that I'd come to some conclusions based on my research. She knows I've been going down the path of studying. She also knows and agrees with my belief in an Old Earth. When I used the word "evolution" she said, "You mean you think we came from monkeys?!" I told her that no, I didn't, ready to explain, however she didn't seem to want to listen...only talk. She also told me not to debate anyone unless I'm ready to be ripped to shreds...?

I told her I wasn't looking for a debate, but I also don't like what is happening amongst Christians who have the view that Science and the Bible can't go together. I told her that it is going to be detrimental to my children's generation as our brains evolve, as science evolves, etc., when they accept the scientific evidence yet find themselves in direct conflict of what they've learned and heard from church, etc. *SIGH*

Baby steps I guess...I feel like I'm coming out of the Christian closet.

 

[Papias]

IEgal wrote:

First post here. I am thankful to have found this forum and TE thread, in particular. Apologies for my novel...I'm searching.

Welcome! It's good to see that you have already gotten a lot of good responses. And, it's clear from your posts that you are a wonderful mother and devout Christian.

I'll add a little on some points, not to argue with those who've posted otherwise, but just to help show the diversity of views on some of these topics. I don't think any of this is a salvation issue, and so I see it as fun and good to discuss.

1) The mythology shaping the Noah flood story are very bothersome to me...I read all the stories. ....So did Ham pass it down? And through that did the other societies borrow their version of the myth?

No handing down or spreading was necessary. Why? Think of this history: Human need water for life, and especially for transportation, along rivers. So human civilizations build their cities on rivers (just check any map with large, old cities). Rivers flood. People remember/legendize big events, like the time the river flooded the city. Based on this, most human cultures are expected to have flood stories. And they do - not a surprise, and not indicative of a single global flood. That's why they don't match up in time - they aren't expected to do so.

2) I also have a really hard time with the fact that we really can't find evidence of a global flood. ... but the overall scientific and historical data does NOT show geological evidence as far as I can see.

Right. Flood geology was rejected by the early geologists as they looked at the evidence. They were all Christians, and who had started out assuming a global flood. Just Google "Adam Sedgewick, flood" to find out more about this interesting history. These Christians had shown that there had never been a global flood (and that the earth was at least millions of years old) by 1840, long before anyone heard of Darwin. An old, never flooded, earth is a Christian idea, proven by Christians, for Christians, over 150 years ago.

4) I first thought I adhered to a more OE view without the evolution aspect until I really started researching logical scientific explanations for homo erectus, neanderthals, dinosaurs, etc.

another good resource is talkorigins.org

After reviewing in my limited knowledge and understanding the research and findings out there throughout history, I realized that I must accept this to better understand our world.

It still amazes me how some churches work to keep Christians from learning. It's sad, since the world declares the glory of God. For instance, I found that many Christians don't know that:

• Practically all scientists support evolution, and have for decades. It's simply not a controversy. While there is disagreement about minor points (such as whether ambulocetus was 70% vs. 80% aquatic), the basics are agreed upon.
• The evidence for evolution includes all kinds of stuff, not just fossils. DNA tests alone would be enough to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if there were no fossils. Others are phylogeny, biogeography, ontogeny, pathology, agriculture, and many others.
• There are tons of excellent series of clearly transitional fossils. The horse, whale, mammal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile and many others series are so clear that creationists generally just avoid them, and don't deny that they are clear.
• Geologists (including thousands of Christians) worldwide overwhelmingly reject the idea of a young earth and a global flood, based on evidence. They have agreed on this for over 150 years.
• Creationists rely almost solely on a handful of deceptive tactics. These include moving the goalposts, being evasive/misleading (AiG does that alot), quote mining (which you’ve no doubt seen – google it), ignoring/hiding evidence (very common), and less often, outright fraud.
• The majority of Christians worldwide are in churches that accept evolution. Evolution is as firmly proven as the existence of the Civil War, and the harder fundamentalists fight against it, the more damage they will do to Christianity, by making people think the Christianity is deception.

5) My other problem is with so much of the Adam and Eve story.

And we've already seen some diversity in how Christians here look at that, too. As Archie suggested, some see a literal Adam and Eve, as I do. This can be completely consistent with what secular biologists explain about our evolution from earlier apes. It's based on the idea that in any breeding, evolving population, there will be a first member to cross any line one makes such as "taller than 5 foot" or "the first to imagine the idea of God". If that's the first human, and God grants him a soul, then that's Adam, and of course all humans will eventually be descended from him,and thus all be humans with souls. This is a common Christian view, especially among Catholics for some reason.

How do most of you TE out there explain where a more allegorical OT stops and a more historically accurate one starts? Do you find you have to keep your views to yourself because they seem controversial? (This part bothers me a lot). Thank you.

It seems to me that the literal and the symbolic are often interwoven, without a single line where one stops forever. For instance, looking at the book of Revelation, it mentions actual cities, and letters to them (literal), and has symbolism all around, including within the letters ("lukewarm"? people are literally all 98.6, etc.). Reading, say, Proverbs shows the same thing. I'm not sure why we'd expect the symbolic to be quarantined to one location.


Yes, these aspects of reality are quite controversial among those who deny reality. I don't have any issues with that in the church I'm at. You might want to look around if you aren't being accepted in your church.


In Christ-

Papias

 

[introextrogal]

IEgal wrote:







It still amazes me how some churches work to keep Christians from learning. It's sad, since the world declares the glory of God. For instance, I found that many Christians don't know that:

• Practically all scientists support evolution, and have for decades. It's simply not a controversy. While there is disagreement about minor points (such as whether ambulocetus was 70% vs. 80% aquatic), the basics are agreed upon.
• The evidence for evolution includes all kinds of stuff, not just fossils. DNA tests alone would be enough to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if there were no fossils. Others are phylogeny, biogeography, ontogeny, pathology, agriculture, and many others.
• There are tons of excellent series of clearly transitional fossils. The horse, whale, mammal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile and many others series are so clear that creationists generally just avoid them, and don't deny that they are clear.
• Geologists (including thousands of Christians) worldwide overwhelmingly reject the idea of a young earth and a global flood, based on evidence. They have agreed on this for over 150 years.
• Creationists rely almost solely on a handful of deceptive tactics. These include moving the goalposts, being evasive/misleading (AiG does that alot), quote mining (which you’ve no doubt seen – google it), ignoring/hiding evidence (very common), and less often, outright fraud.
• The majority of Christians worldwide are in churches that accept evolution. Evolution is as firmly proven as the existence of the Civil War, and the harder fundamentalists fight against it, the more damage they will do to Christianity, by making people think the Christianity is deception.

Everything you said is very informative. Thank you a ton and for the welcome!

I love the list above. More learning time! Also, thanks for the examples of Revelation and Proverbs. Like Archie mentioned, I need to work on this part immensely--learning the Word better.

 

[truefiction1]

You will find many story motifs in common across cultures because the stories have as their source the human "collective unconscious" mind.

For example, all neuro-typical human beings have a strongly imprinted sense of "paradise", or "Eden" that corresponds to the comfortable and anxiety free life within the womb (intrauterine state). We undergo trauma at birth and ultimately develop into "self-awareness" (corresponding to the knowledge of good and evil) and automatically contract a sense of existential guilt due to the condition of human life (i.e. we are incapable of living up to our own expectations because of our physiological limitations as mere mortal animal organisms). Hence, the story of Adam and Eve is a symbolic depiction of us ourselves more than it is a literal history of the human race.

The flood story (great deluge) is a symbol of rebirth and restoration, which is a subconsious archetype that finds expression, world and history wide, in various myths and religious rites, including Christian baptism. (An archetype is a feeling that exists within the subconscious psyche of humans that often surfaces in the form of visual symbols found in dreams or trance states). These are the basis of many traditional stories and the motifs contained therein.

 

[introextrogal]

You will find many story motifs in common across cultures because the stories have as their source the human "collective unconscious" mind.

For example, all neuro-typical human beings have a strongly imprinted sense of "paradise", or "Eden" that corresponds to the comfortable and anxiety free life within the womb (intrauterine state). We undergo trauma at birth and ultimately develop into "self-awareness" (corresponding to the knowledge of good and evil) and automatically contract a sense of existential guilt due to the condition of human life (i.e. we are incapable of living up to our own expectations because of our physiological limitations as mere mortal animal organisms). Hence, the story of Adam and Eve is a symbolic depiction of us ourselves more than it is a literal history of the human race.

The flood story (great deluge) is a symbol of rebirth and restoration, which is a subconsious archetype that finds expression, world and history wide, in various myths and religious rites, including Christian baptism. (An archetype is a feeling that exists within the subconscious psyche of humans that often surfaces in the form of visual symbols found in dreams or trance states). These are the basis of many traditional stories and the motifs contained therein.

Awesome understanding of the story...love this. Thank you!

 

[Doctor Strangelove]

A belief in YEC seems to be a central theme in churches that are fundamentalist, of course, and also in most generic Evangelical (in the American use of that word) churches. The problem is that YEC is not considered one interpretation, or even the best interpretation. YEC is considered the core belief, from which every other doctrine gets its validity.

And they can get VERY particular. I read where one influential YEC apologist/pseudo-scientist said that the Biblical "Leviathan" had to be one particular type of dinosaur and nothing else. He claimed a fellow conservative Christian was an "unbeliever" because he believed there was room to disagree on what Leviathan meant. So yes, it is so bad in some circles that you cannot agree to disagree about minor details within the YEC system itself, much less believe in Old Earth Creationism or Theistic Evolution.

I say this to hopefully encourage you - they will tell you you are a bad Christian or an unbeliever, you worship science and not God, and all that. That should tell you right there that they are focused on the wrong things and they have to guilt people because they don't have good arguments. So instead of feeling depressed, you should feel relieved that you don't have such an insular mentality.

I know some YEC followers who are tolerant and accepting of others, and there are no doubt people who accept TE who look down on others. But the leaders of the YEC movement tend to be dogmatic about what most Christians see as secondary matters.

 

[introextrogal]

Thank you, Doc Strangelove. You are spot on about the YEC view being a central core theme in which all theology is based on that view. That's what I've learned my entire life without even realizing it. That's why I'm so dumbfounded right now.

The irony to all this is how the Lord works. I have been praying for awhile for wisdom and understanding in reading the Bible. I have started seeing things in the scriptures that confused me, therefore making me want to know the history at the times of the stories I was reading about. Then I went down the rabbit hole of researching...and here I am. So, I think this whole journey has been based on prayer. I also think God has answered my prayers in a big way. Now I have to figure out what it means!

I have been reading back throughout this entire section of the forum trying to learn and sort out all my thoughts. Lots of good info and reading.

 

[Doctor Strangelove]

I am guessing you are conservative to some degree or other. I think there is a special challenge for you if you are conservative and yet accept Theistic Evolution or at least you are against YEC. That made things doubly difficult for me. Some conservative Evangelical churches are strongly YEC but might reluctantly accept you if you believe in some form of Old Earth Creationism as long as you explicitly reject evolution. Some can with greater or lesser discomfort accept modern physics and cosmology, but they draw the line at biology and evolution. That (and some issues that had nothing to do with evolution) kept me away from generic Evangelical churches. That kept me from joining a conservative Lutheran church. I understand Young Earth vs. Old Earth is a controversy in a conservative Presbyterian denomination - I would imagine evolution would be even more controversial.

I found myself stuck in our cultural war - I couldn't join a "liberal" church that had no problem with evolution but I would not be too welcome at a "conservative" church because I accept evolution. I found a conservatine Anglican (ACNA) church where evolution isn't a dirty word and joined that. There is a moderate to conservative Lutheran denomination but they don't have any churches near me. Then there is the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy. I might have found a conservative or moderate church in a "liberal" denomination. So, I found my church options somewhat limited as a conservative who accepts evolution. Maybe others have additional suggestions.

 

[Doctor Strangelove]

Thank you, Doc Strangelove. You are spot on about the YEC view being a central core theme in which all theology is based on that view. That's what I've learned my entire life without even realizing it. That's why I'm so dumbfounded right now.

The irony to all this is how the Lord works. I have been praying for awhile for wisdom and understanding in reading the Bible. I have started seeing things in the scriptures that confused me, therefore making me want to know the history at the times of the stories I was reading about. Then I went down the rabbit hole of researching...and here I am. So, I think this whole journey has been based on prayer. I also think God has answered my prayers in a big way. Now I have to figure out what it means!

I have been reading back throughout this entire section of the forum trying to learn and sort out all my thoughts. Lots of good info and reading.

It can be a lonely thing. I hope you have friends and family who are supportive. I have had people tell me things like, "If you were really saved you would know the Bible is literally true." And such profound conversation stoppers like, "My grandparents weren't monkeys!"

 

[introextrogal]

It can be a lonely thing. I hope you have friends and family who are supportive. I have had people tell me things like, "If you were really saved you would know the Bible is literally true." And such profound conversation stoppers like, "My grandparents weren't monkeys!"

Your last quote was about the first thing I was told by my mother. I just decided to stop talking about it after saying, "no that's not really accurate." Regardless, apparently within my conservative sector of Christianity it is a taboo topic.

In all honesty I am not going to go around asking people their opinions. I have many intelligent, thoughtful people at my church. However I also have those that are constantly quoting verses out of context on their facebook profiles.

What this has done is led me to reexamine how I interpret the Bible in a more educated way. I'm embarrassed to say that I've always probably been a bit more of a sheep. I now am delving into different ways different people interpret things like the creation story, giving me so much more insight into God and His glory. In a nutshell, this is a good thing for not only my mind, but also for my faith.

I am currently trying to wrap my head around the myths that occurred in very early history that are similar to Moses getting the commandments from God. While having nothing to do with theistic evolution, this entire process has made me realized that I need a way better education of history if I'm to properly even attempt to interpret God's beautiful word, especially concerning the OT.