(Moved) Some controversy over creation is unnecessary

[benelchi]

Hard biblical evidence for both young earth creation and old earth creation is relatively weak, and arguments on both sides face significant difficulties. While I understand the many reasons for debates over this issue, I do not understand the reasons for the dogmatism that is far too often characterizes these debates. Often the goal of proving a certain perspective becomes so important to people that biblical evidence contradicting their perspective is ignored; sadly sometimes evidence is even manufactured in order "win" the argument.

Please don’t create unnecessary division among believers over God’s creation!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hard biblical evidence for both young earth creation and old earth creation is relatively weak, and arguments on both sides face significant difficulties. While I understand the many reasons for debates over this issue, I do not understand the reasons for the dogmatism that is far too often characterizes these debates. Often the goal of proving a certain perspective becomes so important to people that biblical evidence contradicting their perspective is ignored; sadly sometimes evidence is even manufactured in order "win" the argument.

Please don’t create unnecessary division among believers over God’s creation!

You do realize, I hope, that in this part of the forum that "Biblical evidence" is not very convincing at all, don't you?

Do you have any reliable evidence for your beliefs?

 

[benelchi]

You do realize, I hope, that in this part of the forum that "Biblical evidence" is not very convincing at all, don't you?

Do you have any reliable evidence for your beliefs?

The article to which I linked provides considerable evidence for my beliefs. And while it is evidence that does not require faith in Scripture to accept, the key concern I am addressing is an issue that really only affects those who do have faith in Scripture. For them, biblical evidence should be convincing.

 

[durangodawood]

The article to which I linked provides considerable evidence for my beliefs. And while it is evidence that does not require faith in Scripture to accept, the key concern I am addressing is an issue that really only affects those who do have faith in Scripture. For them, biblical evidence should be convincing.

For some Christians nothing in the Bible should be treated as mythological... because that opens the door to anything in the Bible possibly being myth.

Seems to me thats a strategy to avoid having to make judgments about the meaning of holy scripture... and instead find comfort in a sort of fossilized (and brittle) rigidity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article to which I linked provides considerable evidence for my beliefs. And while it is evidence that does not require faith in Scripture to accept, the key concern I am addressing is an issue that really only affects those who do have faith in Scripture. For them, biblical evidence should be convincing.

We don't even know your beliefs. But the article had no evidence for or against evolution. So why even bring it up? Again, in this area you need to support your claims with real science if you want to be taken seriously

 

[benelchi]

We don't even know your beliefs. But the article had no evidence for or against evolution. So why even bring it up? Again, in this area you need to support your claims with real science if you want to be taken seriously

The issue I raised was about the dogmatism that characterizes much of the young earth/old earth debates which results in unnecessary controversy among believers. The evidence presented in the article demonstrates that gaps in genealogies presented in Scripture (and other Ancient Near Eastern literature) was a relatively common feature, and while gaps cannot be proven for the early Genesis genealogies (because we have only 1 account), neither can they be dismissed. This is one of the many issues related to biblical creation where dogmatism is unwarranted.

The article specifically deals with the manufactured "evidence" by a young earth organization that attempts to use this manufactured evidence to prove that genealogical gaps were not possible in these early genealogies. Sadly both advocates of Young Earth and Old Earth have used invalid (and sometimes dishonest) scriptural arguments in an attempt to invalidate interpretations of Scripture that differ from their own, and rather than approaching those who hold different perspectives on issues that are not clearly communicated in Scripture, they have unnecessarily turned these issues into a "line in the sand."

The article I provided in the link does not attempt to prove that there are or there are not genealogical gaps in the early Genesis genealogies, but it does demonstrate that there are gaps in other similar biblical genealogies, and it does demonstrate that the evidence that some young earth organizations used to dismiss these gaps is invalid. Again, this is not an issue that only affects young earth organizations, but it is a one example of the kind of invalid Scriptural evidence that often enters these kinds of debates. I think you will find the evidence in the article is sufficient to prove both that genealogical gaps do exist in some biblical genealogies, and that the evidence provided by a young earth organization to refute this fact is invalid.

As far as the science question is concerned. Science suggests that man has existed on this earth between 80,000 years and 300,000 year's, Young earth creationists tell us that man has existed for aprox. 5,777 years (current Hebrew date). The question is whether one can dogmatically assert that Scripture can be used to support only one of these two interpretations, I would suggest it cannot. I would also suggest that there are significant difficulties with Scriptural interpretations in support of either option, and regardless of the position you hold, an awareness of the Scriptural weaknesses of your own position should allow for an abundance of grace for those whose position differs from your own.

 

[Ophiolite]

@benelchi. While I see that your appeal to avoid dogmatism is clearly well intentioned, I fear the justification is too weak. It appears to amount to nothing more than "Dogmatism isn't good, so please stop being dogmatic." From what I have seen on this and other forums, that will be insufficient to halt the dogma.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hard biblical evidence for both young earth creation and old earth creation is relatively weak

That's why it seems like a good idea to answer questions about the natural world by investigating the natural world. Those who do so will discover that the earth is 'old'.

 

[Speedwell]

I would also suggest that there are significant difficulties with Scriptural interpretations in support of either option, and regardless of the position you hold, an awareness of the Scriptural weaknesses of your own position should allow for an abundance of grace for those whose position differs from your own.

The weakness is in assuming that the Bible tells us anything at all about the age of the Earth, one way or the other--or was intended to. One might as well try to determine the atomic weight of copper by reading Tom Sawyer.

 

[quatona]

Hard biblical evidence for both young earth creation and old earth creation is relatively weak, and arguments on both sides face significant difficulties.

Hard biblical evidence for a lots of issues in the real world is hard to find. That´s why these issues are solved elsewhere - preferably where hard evidence can be found.

 

[benelchi]

A good place to start is to stop relying on "evidence" that was manufactured simply to add weight to ones personal perspective, and rely only on the real evidence found in Scripture. Then take the time to honestly evaluate the strengths of the arguments held by others, and especially note places where their arguments may be stronger than your own.

@benelchi. While I see that your appeal to avoid dogmatism is clearly well intentioned, I fear the justification is too weak. It appears to amount to nothing more than "Dogmatism isn't good, so please stop being dogmatic." From what I have seen on this and other forums, that will be insufficient to halt the dogma.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A good place to start is to stop relying on "evidence" that was manufactured simply to add weight to ones personal perspective, and rely only on the real evidence found in Scripture. Then take the time to honestly evaluate the strengths of the arguments held by others, and especially note places where their arguments may be stronger than your own.

Sorry, but there is no "real evidence" in scripture. But you are somewhat right. One should avoid creationists sties.

 

[benelchi]

Sorry, but there is no "real evidence" in scripture. But you are somewhat right. One should avoid creationists sties.

The vast majority of archaeologists would disagree with you. There is far too much correlation between the biblical texts and the texts of other ANE cultures to dismiss the biblical texts as simply fictitious. One example both Scripture and the Assyrian black obelisk attest to Jehu and Omri as kings of Israel. Both the names and the chronology are in agreement, and it would be ludicrous to dismiss the biblical references as fictitious accounts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The vast majority of archaeologists would disagree with you. There is far too much correlation between the biblical texts and the texts of other ANE cultures to dismiss the biblical texts as simply fictitious. One example both Scripture and the Assyrian black obelisk attest to Jehu and Omri as kings of Israel. Both the names and the chronology are in agreement, and it would be ludicrous to dismiss the biblical references as fictitious accounts.

Sorry, but you are clearly wrong. Most archaeologists would agree with me when it comes to Genesis. Yes, some of the Bible is accurate. That does not mean all of it is accurate. In fact most archaeologists will tell you that the book of Exodus is myth too. At best you will find some that advocate for a small group of Caananites that left Egypt. No plagues, no Red Sea crossing, etc..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hard biblical evidence for both young earth creation and old earth creation is relatively weak, and arguments on both sides face significant difficulties. While I understand the many reasons for debates over this issue, I do not understand the reasons for the dogmatism that is far too often characterizes these debates. Often the goal of proving a certain perspective becomes so important to people that biblical evidence contradicting their perspective is ignored; sadly sometimes evidence is even manufactured in order "win" the argument.

Please don’t create unnecessary division among believers over God’s creation!

I skipped through the linked article, and it appears to be an opinion piece on the interpretation of scripture.

If you think biblical evidence for both young earth creation and old earth creation is relatively weak, try examining the Earth itself for evidence. You'll find the evidence overwhelmingly points to an ancient Earth.

I would suggest that relying on a collection of stories written two thousand years ago for your evidence is always going to make for a 'relatively weak' guide to the real world. Why not broaden your horizons and find some more recent sources?

 

[benelchi]

Sorry, but you are clearly wrong. Most archaeologists would agree with me when it comes to Genesis. Yes, some of the Bible is accurate. That does not mean all of it is accurate. In fact most archaeologists will tell you that the book of Exodus is myth too. At best you will find some that advocate for a small group of Caananites that left Egypt. No plagues, no Red Sea crossing, etc..

Your original claim was "there is no "real evidence" in scripture," and now you have changed your tune i.e. stating that "Yes, some of the Bible is accurate." In other words, you recognized that archaeologist do not agree with your original claim, as I had said. Please don't play games by trying to move the target, and/or put words in my mouth that I did not say.

So now that we both agree that "some of the Bible is accurate," the real questions are: Are portions of Scripture inaccurate or simply misunderstood? What is the basis used to categorize portions of Scripture as inaccurate? How much has your personal beliefs influenced your interpretation of the evidence? However, this is really the topic of a different thread.

 

[benelchi]

I skipped through the linked article, and it appears to be an opinion piece on the interpretation of scripture.

If you think biblical evidence for both young earth creation and old earth creation is relatively weak, try examining the Earth itself for evidence. You'll find the evidence overwhelmingly points to an ancient Earth.

I would suggest that relying on a collection of stories written two thousand years ago for your evidence is always going to make for a 'relatively weak' guide to the real world. Why not broaden your horizons and find some more recent sources?

There is nothing in my post that indicates that I haven't already spent a significant amount of time looking at modern scientific research related to the origins of our universe; however, that was not the point of my post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your original claim was "there is no "real evidence" in scripture," and now you have changed your tune i.e. stating that "Yes, some of the Bible is accurate." In other words, you recognized that archaeologist do not agree with your original claim, as I had said. Please don't play games by trying to move the target, and/or put words in my mouth that I did not say.

Fine, I should have been clearer. A more proper statement would have been there is no real evidence in scripture for the debate on the creation myth. I thought that the meaning was obvious from context. I am not playing games. It appears that there was a simple misunderstanding.

So now that we both agree that "some of the Bible is accurate," the real questions are: Are portions of Scripture inaccurate or simply misunderstood? What is the basis used to categorize portions of Scripture as inaccurate? How much has your personal beliefs influenced your interpretation of the evidence? However, this is really the topic of a different thread.

Clearly some parts are inaccurate, at best. But if you wish you can reinterpret Genesis to suit your beliefs, or look at it as a morality tale. In that case, even though it did not happen, it would not be a lie as so many creationists like to claim. Just as no one is disappointed that animals do not talk like in Aesop's Fables, the stories still have value. But if one insists that the Genesis accounts are accurate or the Bible is a lie, again as only creationists do, then those people are harming Christianity since much of it is obviously false.

 

[Speedwell]

The vast majority of archaeologists would disagree with you. There is far too much correlation between the biblical texts and the texts of other ANE cultures to dismiss the biblical texts as simply fictitious. One example both Scripture and the Assyrian black obelisk attest to Jehu and Omri as kings of Israel. Both the names and the chronology are in agreement, and it would be ludicrous to dismiss the biblical references as fictitious accounts.

No one is dismissing the Bible texts as "simply fictitious." The statement is that there is no scientific evidence in the Bible. The Bible may be correct to some degree in describing events of the past but the evidence comes from the work of the archaeologists.

 

[Michael]

Hard biblical evidence for both young earth creation and old earth creation is relatively weak, and arguments on both sides face significant difficulties. While I understand the many reasons for debates over this issue, I do not understand the reasons for the dogmatism that is far too often characterizes these debates. Often the goal of proving a certain perspective becomes so important to people that biblical evidence contradicting their perspective is ignored; sadly sometimes evidence is even manufactured in order "win" the argument.

Please don’t create unnecessary division among believers over God’s creation!

Essentialsaltes summed it up IMO. Anyone who's willing to embrace "science" to find out if their own 'interpretation' of the Bible is correct will discover that the Earth is ancient.

IMO, a problem only arises when someone is unwilling to put their Biblical "interpretation" skills to the test and allow for scientific evidence to arbitrate between "good" interpretations and bad ones.