Literal truth

[metherion]

I am curious. Why does Genesis have to be literally true?

Ignore whether or not it looks as if it is meant to be interpreted literally, that isn't what I mean. What I mean is why does everything else depend on a literal Genesis? Why does Jesus' Sacrifice, the Virgin Birth, the Prophecies foretelling the Saviour, and so on depend on a literal interpretation of Genesis?

How do we KNOW these are false if Genesis is not literal?

Metherion

 

[laptoppop]

It is not so much as they are "false" as that the theology gets very muddied.

Genesis proclaims a literal Adam, from whom other people came, with an unbroken line of promise and fulfillment through Abraham, etc., David, all the way to Jesus. This establishes Jesus' complete humanity AND His fulfillment of the promises. Jesus is called the last Adam as compared to the first. Romans 5:14, I Cor 15:22 and 15:45 all refer to Adam in the context of developing the redemptive theology around Jesus. Jesus talks about the creation of man and woman as occurring at the beginning of creation, not millions of years later.

The ten commandments in Exodus (called out as being absolutely directly from God) specifically calls out the 6 day creation as God setting an example for men, that they should obey the Sabbath. Jesus helps us understand that God made the Sabbath for men, not the other way around -- its a good thing, not a yoke. If the creation is not 6 days, there's a big problem. Was God a liar? Did they write His commandment down wrong? Was Moses a liar?

Other parts of Genesis are important as well. For example, the global flood. Without going into interpretational gymnastics, if you gave a bunch of reasonably intelligent (but not schooled in liberal theology) people a copy of Genesis and asked them afterwards if the flood was global, I would bet the vast majority (or all) would say yes. Its how the story reads. However, a global flood leaves evidence. This directly affects our interpretations of the fossil record, for example. The fossil record can be interpreted as supporting evolution, or as supporting a global flood. I happen to believe that the global flood model matches the physical evidence much better, as well as matching the Scriptural account.

The biggest way it matters is that it affects our view of the entire Scriptures. Are they from God or from men? Are the topics raised limited in truth to the worldview and knowledge of the authors, or is an omnipotent loving God seeking to communicate with us? Timothy called the scriptures "God-Breathed" and there are a TON of scriptures rejoicing in the way that they are more than just a myth with vague spiritual messages. They are true and real. They reveal God working throughout real history in real ways with real people. I can rejoice that that same God can work through me in real ways in my real life.

(I prefer the term historically accurate, as opposed to literal. There are tons of different literary constructions in the Scriptures -- poems, stories, parables, word pictures, etc. But Genesis is accurate historically.)

 

[vossler]

Once again, you hit the nail right on the head. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks!

 

[busterdog]

One can believe in the essential doctrines and acheive salvation with no knowledge of Genesis or a completely erroneous one, of course. But there is value in consistency between the origins story, the redemption story and the end times story.

One purpose of all scripture is to tell who God is. Is he powerful? You can make the case that he is powerful if he can make evolution happen. But, it seems obvious that a six day creation is considerably more dramatic demonstration of power.

And, if you want creative power to intervene and heal you, for example, which story is more consistent with Matthew's use of Isaiah 53 (by his stripes we are healed)? Again, you don't need Genesis to reach a conclusion, but please tell me, which is more consistent on its face?

Is it even important that God be consistent? I would say so. That is what preserves my mental equilibrium. (No, that is not a straight line.) Look at how desperate people are for truth. They go to ouiji boards, psychic hotlines, books from Oprah, etc., etc. It is pretty important for us that God tells the truth.

How about consistency in your eternal future? What does God say about the kind of world he will provide in lieu of this fallen world? Genesis tells us what that world is like in part, though many other prophets tell us as well.

And, there is a certain kind of love that God expresses by giving and preserving life and refusing to let His creatures die. That story is in Genesis, among other places.

God stakes His reputation on His ability to tell the truth. That is such a critical truth. It has everything to do with consistency. While our TE brethren emphasize the essential meaning or significance of what is said in scripture, let's face it, there is "essential meaning" and then there is "essential meaning." There is a big difference between people remembering me fondly and prolonging my life through memory of my time on earth and God protecting me from the nut who wants to chop my head off. The essential meaning of God's power to preserve my life has a bit of different meaning in the two different examples. The degree to which God tells the truth differs accordingly. That is what is at stake.

Genesis also tells you who is on charge on earth and that we live in a time of a fallen condition. That fallen nature suffuses everything. That is very important to know. God is not to blame for fallen-ness that leads to Nazis and Wahhabbis.

 

[crawfish]

You know, there are literally thousands of differences between groups that believe different things that the "bible clearly says". They have disparate, sometimes conflicting, beliefs about the literal truth.

Some creationists are Calvinists; some Arminians.

Some are dispensationalists; others think that is bad interpretation.

There are vast arguments about how the Holy Spirit works in our lives.

There are many different views about what is necessary for salvation.

There are many views of baptism.

Many in my own particular "brand" will tell you that the bible PLAINLY prohibits the use of musical instruments in worship, and have a very involved and logical rationalization behind it.

I could go on, but you get the point. There are plenty of people who would applaud your stand on the literalism of Genesis, who would then find something wrong with your faith that would condemn you. They would all have literal bible interpretations to justify their belief, and different sets of assumptions that you'd be unable to convince them of that made their assertions solid.

Rest assured, the Christian world doesn't need a bunch of persnickety intellectuals who think evolution and God might not be contradictory to open the floodgates of personal bible interpretations. In fact, it may facilitate it, considering the bible is an incredibly complex and subtle piece of work.

 

[laptoppop]

Nah, its not that hard. Everybody just has to agree with me, and then they'll all be right!

 

[Tinker Grey]

One can believe in the essential doctrines and acheive salvation with no knowledge of Genesis or a completely erroneous one, of course. But there is value in consistency between the origins story, the redemption story and the end times story.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. ~ Emerson

One purpose of all scripture is to tell who God is. Is he powerful? You can make the case that he is powerful if he can make evolution happen. But, it seems obvious that a six day creation is considerably more dramatic demonstration of power.

I've never understood this sentiment. Isn't creation of the entire universe in an instant considerably more powerful than taking six days to do it?

And before someone invokes God waiting 13.5 billion years ... if God is outside time, God didn't wait. Waiting is a meaningless concept to a God outside time.

And, if you want creative power to intervene and heal you, for example, which story is more consistent with Matthew's use of Isaiah 53 (by his stripes we are healed)? Again, you don't need Genesis to reach a conclusion, but please tell me, which is more consistent on its face?

This question doesn't mean anything to me. First, whatever it means, surely God's creative power in an instant is enough to convince me God can do anything.

But, really, how God created doesn't impact my understanding of Isaiah 53 in the least. I don't know why it should. It just ain't relevant.

Is it even important that God be consistent? I would say so. That is what preserves my mental equilibrium. (No, that is not a straight line.) Look at how desperate people are for truth. They go to ouiji boards, psychic hotlines, books from Oprah, etc., etc. It is pretty important for us that God tells the truth.

1) As has been stated many times in these forums, God did tell the truth ... it's right there in universe itself.
2) As has been stated many times in these forums, what else could God have told bronze-age shepherds about how he did it?

And trusting God? If I can't trust his creation to tell about how he did it, why should I trust a text that has passed thru several minds before reaching mine?

Compare:
God -> Moses -> translators -> me (3+ brain filters)
Vs.
God -> creation -> me. (Only 1 brain filter)

How about consistency in your eternal future? What does God say about the kind of world he will provide in lieu of this fallen world? Genesis tells us what that world is like in part, though many other prophets tell us as well.

It strikes me that if we can't trust our senses about the universe that God created, then God himself is deceiving in the most direct revelation we have.

If Genesis is metaphorical, I trust God more. If it is literal, I don't trust him.

And, there is a certain kind of love that God expresses by giving and preserving life and refusing to let His creatures die. That story is in Genesis, among other places.

This is true whether the story is metaphorical or literal.

Genesis also tells you who is on charge on earth and that we live in a time of a fallen condition. That fallen nature suffuses everything. That is very important to know. God is not to blame for fallen-ness that leads to Nazis and Wahhabbis.

This is true whether it is metaphorical or not.

Tell me, if Genesis is not literal, is man not fallen?

 

[busterdog]

You know, there are literally thousands of differences between groups that believe different things that the "bible clearly says". They have disparate, sometimes conflicting, beliefs about the literal truth.

Some creationists are Calvinists; some Arminians.

Some are dispensationalists; others think that is bad interpretation.

There are vast arguments about how the Holy Spirit works in our lives.

There are many different views about what is necessary for salvation.

There are many views of baptism.

Many in my own particular "brand" will tell you that the bible PLAINLY prohibits the use of musical instruments in worship, and have a very involved and logical rationalization behind it.

I could go on, but you get the point. There are plenty of people who would applaud your stand on the literalism of Genesis, who would then find something wrong with your faith that would condemn you. They would all have literal bible interpretations to justify their belief, and different sets of assumptions that you'd be unable to convince them of that made their assertions solid.

Rest assured, the Christian world doesn't need a bunch of persnickety intellectuals who think evolution and God might not be contradictory to open the floodgates of personal bible interpretations. In fact, it may facilitate it, considering the bible is an incredibly complex and subtle piece of work.

If the creationists differed greatly with what you just said, we would call you a heretic. But, we aren't and generally I think we would defend you against the charge.

However, there is a big difference between life and death. This is not a question of semantics. Its not a nuance or a doctrinal nicety. Does God want us dead forever or alive forever? Seems to me that distinction is worth quibbling about.

And, I am regret that we differ so greatly on whether that distinction makes any difference to what God's reputation for telling the truth is.

I don't expect conversion or widespread acceptance of the YEC view of when death entered the garden. I am more interested in understanding how the TE world deals with ultimate hope. I am also interested in know why denying YEC is so vital to a world view. It won't change how anyone does chemistry, finding oil, doing biology, the breeding of prize Corki's or astronomy. That some evolution happens now does not require a determination of how things worked 6,000 years ago. Why is evolution so terribly relevant?

 

[busterdog]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. ~ Emerson

I want to know where I stand in this world. The ideas are interesting to me in an of themselves, and so I can deal with inconsistency in that part of my day. But, I also want to know, who saves me, what can He save me from and can I trust him. You bet I want consistency. Emerson's words work better in a classroom.

I've never understood this sentiment. Isn't creation of the entire universe in an instant considerably more powerful than taking six days to do it?

One way I can sort of understand and the other I can't. That's one dramatic difference. One way is like what I want in my life and the other is a hopeless wait for things that take longer than I time for.

And before someone invokes God waiting 13.5 billion years ... if God is outside time, God didn't wait. Waiting is a meaningless concept to a God outside time.

Waiting in Gethsemane had meaning indeed. God waiting for His people to turn to Him was meaning. I understand what you mean, but the situation is more complex once He creates and then enters creation.

This question doesn't mean anything to me. First, whatever it means, surely God's creative power in an instant is enough to convince me God can do anything.

But, really, how God created doesn't impact my understanding of Isaiah 53 in the least. I don't know why it should. It just ain't relevant.

We all realize that one can believe anything at all about Genesis and still believe everything one needs to believe about the historical mission and power of Jesus. Consistency is not required.

But, is it so unreasonable to look at the problem childishly? What do we want from our Dad's? We want quick help. We want to know whether Dad is capable of it. As rational as your response is, the demands of human need are intractible. God meets that need as it is, not with a requirement that people rationalize the problem. The Word says to cry out to the Lord. The Bible says to wait upon the Lord, but I can't imagine He would ask us to wait millions of years. Why cry out if that is the case? Just send a message in a bottle.

1) As has been stated many times in these forums, God did tell the truth ... it's right there in universe itself.
2) As has been stated many times in these forums, what else could God have told bronze-age shepherds about how he did it?

The Bible was written for me. My childhood. My language. My degrees. Not just the bronze age shepherd. The Bible says the truth is in the Bible and that it is for me. The idea that the creation tells the story itself does not appear in the Bible. There is a reference in Romans to people knowing that they have a creator before whom they are morally accountable. I understand the extrapolation from Romans, but to deny that a great body of other references putting the revealed Word above other knowledge is being a bit free with the text.

And trusting God? If I can't trust his creation to tell about how he did it, why should I trust a text that has passed thru several minds before reaching mine?

More people have found the testimony of the earth to be that God created it without billions of years. What did creation say to them? If we take a vote, how will your view stack up?

Compare:
God -> Moses -> translators -> me (3+ brain filters)
Vs.
God -> creation -> me. (Only 1 brain filter)

You can assume the mind of man is the gate keeper of whether the Word reveals truth. In my life the testimony is that God got through literally. His faithfulness in my life is my filter.

It strikes me that if we can't trust our senses about the universe that God created, then God himself is deceiving in the most direct revelation we have.

I would have to trust science first to feel deceived, but I don't. I don't even own a telescope. So creation says something quite different to me. (Thank you Falling Waters.) So what do I do? Must I have a telescope?

If Genesis is metaphorical, I trust God more. If it is literal, I don't trust him.

I am thankful that you trust Him.

This is true whether the story is metaphorical or literal.

And more true to me in the latter sense.

Tell me, if Genesis is not literal, is man not fallen?

I don't think one needs to be consistent to have the correct conclusion, but it helps.

Let's take a look at the prevailing evolutionary view of man's future. Science has lots of great ideas for how man might get out of the mess he is in. Perhaps it is not Utopia in the ideal society designed by Western academics, but the plan is not bad at all. But, it assumes a degree of fallen-ness that is completely alien to the view of this YEC.

Man will not and cannot fix either civilizatoin, or nations or the planet. If Genesis is not literal, one might tend to be a bit less worried about how fallen we are.


Edited to add: Yes, I am being obtuse about science. I am pushing the envelope on what creation "says" and refusing to deal with many questions. I really did this because I quite simple place biblical knowledge above all others. However, what creation says remains a question worth answering. But, if you are going to adopt the position about what creation has said to people, we do we assume that creation must be true to the modern astronomer only? Apparently creation lied to lots of people before there were telescopes. So why trust it now.

 

[crawfish]

If the creationists differed greatly with what you just said, we would call you a heretic. But, we aren't and generally I think we would defend you against the charge.

However, there is a big difference between life and death. This is not a question of semantics. Its not a nuance or a doctrinal nicety. Does God want us dead forever or alive forever? Seems to me that distinction is worth quibbling about.

And, I am regret that we differ so greatly on whether that distinction makes any difference to what God's reputation for telling the truth is.

I don't expect conversion or widespread acceptance of the YEC view of when death entered the garden. I am more interested in understanding how the TE world deals with ultimate hope. I am also interested in know why denying YEC is so vital to a world view. It won't change how anyone does chemistry, finding oil, doing biology, the breeding of prize Corki's or astronomy. That some evolution happens now does not require a determination of how things worked 6,000 years ago. Why is evolution so terribly relevant?

I know that some creationists would call me a heretic. Take a look at the AIG website; you'll find multiple arguments on how belief in evolution leads to social evil and godlessness. Just as you guys get tired of being condescended to, we (at least I) get tired of our faith and dedication to the Lord being questioned.

As to why creation/evolution is such a big deal. I am a big-time nerd, a software engineer, a lover of the SF and fantasy genres, and a lot of the people I deal with at work and at my interests are agnostic and atheist. People who see the silliness of the creationist belief, and attribute that silliness to the overall belief in God. When I am trying to reach out to them, creationism is a HUGE roadblock - even when I deny it. MOST Christians couldn't care less about the evolution/creation argument. It rarely, if ever, crosses their mind. But there are more than a few people that we can't reach because they feel they'd have to turn off their brains and accept an unreal reality to follow God, and can't imagine that if God really existed that He'd require such a thing.

The other day, my mother-in-law - who's been in a spiritual search for decades - spoke of her problems with many of the literal views of the bible as a huge roadblock for her. After some discussion over how we view things, she was so relieved - she hasn't accepted the Lord yet, but the way is open in a way that has never been open before. I am so excited by this, and I pray that others with the same roadblock will have access to the TE point of view.

 

[Deamiter]

Let's take a look at the prevailing evolutionary view of man's future.

Wait what? What exactly is the "prevailing evolutionary view of man's future?" Are you really discussing the probable variation of alleles in the homo sapiens population or are you discussing militant atheism or what?

Science has lots of great ideas for how man might get out of the mess he is in. Perhaps it is not Utopia in the ideal society designed by Western academics, but the plan is not bad at all. But, it assumes a degree of fallen-ness that is completely alien to the view of this YEC.

Again, what the heck are you talking about? What has biological evolution got to do with utopia and whatever "degree of fallen-ness" is assumed by the theory?

Man will not and cannot fix either civilizatoin, or nations or the planet. If Genesis is not literal, one might tend to be a bit less worried about how fallen we are.

Heck, we can't even DEFINE what's wrong with civilization, nations or the planet! But why would we be less worried about our fallen state if Genesis were not historically accurate? I mean, whether it is historically accurate or not, atheists will still reject the symbolic truth that we all have sinned against God and require salvation. And whether it's historically accurate or not, it still teaches that we have each sinned and require salvation (as even to YEC theologians, Adam is symbolically representative of each of us even as he is the first sinner).

The urgency of our need for salvation is no lesser or greater depending on whether Genesis 1-2 is historically accurate. At least it SHOULD be no lesser or greater though I suppose some people might rest their following of Christ on whether or not God chose to record these spiritual truths about our sinful nature in a historical or mythological genre.

 

[laptoppop]

It strikes me that if we can't trust our senses about the universe that God created, then God himself is deceiving in the most direct revelation we have.

If Genesis is metaphorical, I trust God more. If it is literal, I don't trust him.

Please be a bit more honest with yourself. The difference is not between God's revelation and your senses, it is between God's revelation and the consensus scientific view of the current age.

You cannot see, taste, smell, hear or touch evolution -- it is a theory of how life could have developed.

 

[busterdog]

I know that some creationists would call me a heretic. Take a look at the AIG website; you'll find multiple arguments on how belief in evolution leads to social evil and godlessness. Just as you guys get tired of being condescended to, we (at least I) get tired of our faith and dedication to the Lord being questioned.

As to why creation/evolution is such a big deal. I am a big-time nerd, a software engineer, a lover of the SF and fantasy genres, and a lot of the people I deal with at work and at my interests are agnostic and atheist. People who see the silliness of the creationist belief, and attribute that silliness to the overall belief in God. When I am trying to reach out to them, creationism is a HUGE roadblock - even when I deny it. MOST Christians couldn't care less about the evolution/creation argument. It rarely, if ever, crosses their mind. But there are more than a few people that we can't reach because they feel they'd have to turn off their brains and accept an unreal reality to follow God, and can't imagine that if God really existed that He'd require such a thing.

The other day, my mother-in-law - who's been in a spiritual search for decades - spoke of her problems with many of the literal views of the bible as a huge roadblock for her. After some discussion over how we view things, she was so relieved - she hasn't accepted the Lord yet, but the way is open in a way that has never been open before. I am so excited by this, and I pray that others with the same roadblock will have access to the TE point of view.

You know, I have a hard time being literal with the Gospel and getting anywhere with people. But, it is still true.

You obviously needn't preach Genesis to anyone. Sometimes none of this is about our strength. The Word goes out and will not return to Him void. Just put it out there, even if you leave Genesis out.

 

[busterdog]

Wait what? What exactly is the "prevailing evolutionary view of man's future?" Are you really discussing the probable variation of alleles in the homo sapiens population or are you discussing militant atheism or what?

Again, what the heck are you talking about? What has biological evolution got to do with utopia and whatever "degree of fallen-ness" is assumed by the theory?

Heck, we can't even DEFINE what's wrong with civilization, nations or the planet! But why would we be less worried about our fallen state if Genesis were not historically accurate? I mean, whether it is historically accurate or not, atheists will still reject the symbolic truth that we all have sinned against God and require salvation. And whether it's historically accurate or not, it still teaches that we have each sinned and require salvation (as even to YEC theologians, Adam is symbolically representative of each of us even as he is the first sinner).

The urgency of our need for salvation is no lesser or greater depending on whether Genesis 1-2 is historically accurate. At least it SHOULD be no lesser or greater though I suppose some people might rest their following of Christ on whether or not God chose to record these spiritual truths about our sinful nature in a historical or mythological genre.

Ask a modern academic, how do we solve the problems of this world? I think you will get a fairly consistent answer. It will have to do with human tolerance, cooperation, integrity, resourcefulness (never mind the exact plan, whether it is communism or free-market capitalism.)

Nuts like me say, are you kidding, the very elements will melt.

As for salvation, it means lots of things. Sozo is what the planet needs. Its what our bodies need. Not to mention our Spirits.

 

[crawfish]

You know, I have a hard time being literal with the Gospel and getting anywhere with people. But, it is still true.

You obviously needn't preach Genesis to anyone. Sometimes none of this is about our strength. The Word goes out and will not return to Him void. Just put it out there, even if you leave Genesis out.

It's the fact that somebody put Genesis IN the mix that makes the difference. And by "somebody", I mean "creationism".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wow. This looks like this could be a good conversation.

I want to know where I stand in this world. The ideas are interesting to me in an of themselves, and so I can deal with inconsistency in that part of my day. But, I also want to know, who saves me, what can He save me from and can I trust him. You bet I want consistency. Emerson's words work better in a classroom.

I do want consistency in God's character. This is why in other conversations I opine that God must be constrained by logic. Else he could consign me to hell while simultaneously constraining me heaven. Else, he could condemn his followers to hell while saving those that despise him. Etc.

However, what I was shooting for was kind of what C.S. Lewis was alluding to in Mere Christianity is that our God is a grownup God. Some concepts that he was dealing with suggests that what God does is unexpected to us; but, that that is what we should expect from a real God ... something more complex than can be dreamt of in our philosophy.

I'm not suggesting that your desires or perceptions are childish. Rather, our desires for simplicity can't be parameters for God's operations.

One way I can sort of understand and the other I can't. That's one dramatic difference. One way is like what I want in my life and the other is a hopeless wait for things that take longer than I time for.

See, I trust God. He is a personal God (or as some moderns have said, trans-personal, more than personal). He knows me. He knows my needs. I've got less than 100 years total, and much less to go.

If God is good -- and I believe he is -- then he will respond (and does) in a manner that means something to me, a time-bound creature.

God's goodness is not dependent (to me) on the literalness of Genesis. For one, the goodness of God is evident throughout scripture. Whatever a metaphoricalness of Genesis might imply to you, the consistency of scripture shows him to be good.

Billions of years mean nothing to me when it comes to understanding the goodness of God.

Waiting in Gethsemane had meaning indeed. God waiting for His people to turn to Him was meaning. I understand what you mean, but the situation is more complex once He creates and then enters creation.

Sure. But does Jesus still experience time? Will we experience time in heaven? I certainly don't know. Even if we will, should we suppose that the person of the Father experiences time just because the Son does? Again, I certainly don't know.

I do believe that through his experience as a time-bound man, he knows as experience what time-boundness means to us -- more so, since he's sees/seen it from both sides.

Again, the time of the universe is irrelevant to God's goodness, since he's experienced that time-boundness as a Man.

We all realize that one can believe anything at all about Genesis and still believe everything one needs to believe about the historical mission and power of Jesus. Consistency is not required.

I agree, but let me quibble anyway. TEs believe that metaphor makes it consistent. It is evident to a TE that creation itself disagrees with a literal reading of Genesis; therefore metaphor saves consistency.

To respond one of your later statements now, yes I do trust science. I daresay that on average you do too. To use a tired example, you're typing on your computer, aren't you. This requires science. Science discovered the properties of silicon and various doping techniques that create the switching capabilities of transistors. That science was the science of observation.

I'd bet you could tell me what makes the sun work. You trust that science. Yet, one might ask why since we've never been to the sun. We've never gathered the material and put it to the test.

Do you doubt gravity? Do you think God holds us on the planet directly, or do you think he created a natural force that holds us here? Do angels push the planets around the sun? You accept gravity as the explanation, I'd bet.

A principle presupposition is that God made us inquisitive. God made us to seek out and discover his truths buried in creation. Creation is God's spoken word -- much more literally than the Bible is (unless, you believe verbal plenary inspiration.) God wouldn't lie to us; he wouldn't plant false evidence; he wouldn't make us fundamentally unable to understand what we perceive.

It is true that sometimes it takes generations of man to understand the truth (like the world being round; like gravity). Therefore, we pursure that understanding with humility. But, that truth is discoverable.

The Bible was written for me. My childhood. My language. My degrees. Not just the bronze age shepherd.

But, a bronze-age shepherd is the lowest-common denominator (no offense to bronze-age shepherds).

The Bible says the truth is in the Bible and that it is for me.

But truth is contained in metaphor. All words are signposts to the truth. But, they aren't the truth itself.

The idea that the creation tells the story itself does not appear in the Bible.

The heavens declare the glory of God.

Besides, if creation isn't evidence of itself, what is it then?

There is a reference in Romans to people knowing that they have a creator before whom they are morally accountable. I understand the extrapolation from Romans, but to deny that a great body of other references putting the revealed Word above other knowledge is being a bit free with the text.

As gluadys has said elsewhere, no one is putting one form of revelation above another. The Bible reveals our relationship to God. Creation reveals physical reality. Both are necessary. Both are required. One cannot substitute for the other.

More people have found the testimony of the earth to be that God created it without billions of years. What did creation say to them? If we take a vote, how will your view stack up?

More people thru history have found the testimony that demons create disease rather than germs? Should I back away from germ theory?

You can assume the mind of man is the gate keeper of whether the Word reveals truth. In my life the testimony is that God got through literally. His faithfulness in my life is my filter.

You believe that God intervened in your brain directly? Really? What about all those Holy Ghost filled fellow Christians that disagree with on various and assundry points? Is God telling us all somethign different?

I would suggest that you process reality which you extrapolate to the faithfullness of God. We all do. It cannot be otherwise. This is not to say God isn't faithful; it's is just that we all process reality through the filters of our brains.

I would have to trust science first to feel deceived, but I don't. I don't even own a telescope. So creation says something quite different to me. (Thank you Falling Waters.) So what do I do? Must I have a telescope?

I've stated my position above more fully, but let me address one point here -- owning a telescope.

Life is too short to replicate all sciences experiments. But if God should grant me 1000 years, I could understand relativity. I could understand germ-theory. I could understand the math-models for gravity. I could understand why scientists think the sun is made of hydrogen, generating heat thru fusion. I could improve the internal combustion engine.

The point isn't that we all need to replicate everything, but that we could.

I am thankful that you trust Him.

I do, thanks. I'm glad you do, too.

And more true to me in the latter sense.

I think the key phrase is "to me." I don't deny you feel this way. I don't even expect to change your mind. I just want to show that it need not be so.

I don't think one needs to be consistent to have the correct conclusion, but it helps.

I hope the above shows that I think TE is consistent. That you think it isn't speaks of your internal condition, not mine (no judgment here -- the same as if I said "that I think YEC is inconsistent with reality" speaks of me -- that perception is my problem, so to speak.)

Let's take a look at the prevailing evolutionary view of man's future. Science has lots of great ideas for how man might get out of the mess he is in. Perhaps it is not Utopia in the ideal society designed by Western academics, but the plan is not bad at all. But, it assumes a degree of fallen-ness that is completely alien to the view of this YEC.

I note that someone else addressed this, and my post is already long.

Man will not and cannot fix either civilizatoin, or nations or the planet. If Genesis is not literal, one might tend to be a bit less worried about how fallen we are.

The consequence of a belief doesn't make it more or less true.

Edited to add: Yes, I am being obtuse about science. I am pushing the envelope on what creation "says" and refusing to deal with many questions. I really did this because I quite simple place biblical knowledge above all others. However, what creation says remains a question worth answering. But, if you are going to adopt the position about what creation has said to people, we do we assume that creation must be true to the modern astronomer only? Apparently creation lied to lots of people before there were telescopes. So why trust it now.

See ... you hold the Bible above creation. My position is that the Bible speaks to relationship; Creation itself speaks to physical reality. One cannot replace the other. One is not above the other. They are different and have different purposes.

Yeesh, this is long.

YMMV

 

[Tinker Grey]

Please be a bit more honest with yourself. The difference is not between God's revelation and your senses, it is between God's revelation and the consensus scientific view of the current age.

Please be honest with yourself. That is what you would like me to mean.

See my long post to busterdog for a fuller explanation.

You cannot see, taste, smell, hear or touch evolution -- it is a theory of how life could have developed.

Sure you can. It's there in the DNA. It's there in the fossils. It's in every birth. It's everywhere.

True, connecting the dots takes interpretation; but, so does reading scripture.

 

[laptoppop]

We see similar things. The difference is in our interpretation. It is not your SENSES.

It is a different level when God calls us to do things against our own senses -- such as Abraham with his son. I don't think that's happened to many people recently.

So the issue is that you are putting your interpretation, based on the consensus view which is developed from a scientific method that specifically assumes God is either non-existent or unimportant and impotent, over Scripture. No, I don't say over interpretation of Scripture. The Bible was meant to be understood. If you took a bunch of brilliant atheists and had them read the Bible and asked them if it said there was a global flood in Genesis - they'd say yes. To deny the reality of the story is to deny the plain reading of the text. The Bible was not locked up so that only some ruling class of people could hand down the proper interpretation.

So the Bible teaches there was a global flood. We have stratigraphic evidence that supports a global flood. Why look for anything else? Is it that important to agree with secular agnostic (or even atheistic) science?

 

[crawfish]

So the Bible teaches there was a global flood. We have stratigraphic evidence that supports a global flood. Why look for anything else? Is it that important to agree with secular agnostic (or even atheistic) science?

We have the grace of God. Nothing else is required to save us. Why look for anything else? Why continue to pore into the universe when we're all gonna die and face judgement anyway?

 

[juvenissun]

If Genesis is metaphorical, I trust God more. If it is literal, I don't trust him.

I am on the opposite.

If even "i" could understand what the true message in the Genesis 1 is, then I do not trust this god.

A literal reading of Genesis 1 makes one think hard. A scientist do not take an easy way out.

I think to interpret the Genesis 1 by a way you can "accept" is a very "stupid" way of reading the Bible. The first step you know that read it correctly is to admit that it does not make sense. The second step is "do not try to make it sound reasonable to you", but to remember it with a question mark.

If you humble and ask, God would let you know.