Not interested in God's word?

[Assyrian]

so how do TE believers explain evolution? I am familiar with Darwinism.

The same way science does, the same as Christian doctors explain medicine the way medical science does. We understand God is behind it, but the science is the same.

 

[Keachian]

so how do TE believers explain evolution? I am familiar with Darwinism.

See my signature.

And because Greggy is so much fun I'll reply to him:

You sought refuge in the metaphorical but when we interpret the parables the interpretation contains more of God (more spiritual activity) and less matter. So we would go from literally Creationism to metaphorically even more Creationism.

Where exactly did Papias go to the metaphorical? He was pointing out a literal reading of the text.

 

[Assyrian]

Another difference between those who believe TE and Creation is with this statement. Evolution also have serious trouble with the scientific evidence and often evolutionist pretend they have a monopoly on scientific facts. The reason science itself has so much trouble with origins is the idea "the present is the key to the past." When that key doesn't fit scientist tries to jam the key into the hole.

There are two approaches, if you follow where the evidence leads you end up theories that fit the evidence. That is called science. The alternative is to start off with a conclusion and spend all you time trying to explain why the evidence doesn't fit.

 

[Keachian]

There are two approaches, if you follow where the evidence leads you end up theories that fit the evidence. That is called science. The alternative is to start off with a conclusion and spend all you time trying to explain why the evidence doesn't fit.

Hermeneutics done well is a science
Biblical hermeneutics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I personally prefer the Historical-Grammatical and Christo-centric principles

 

[Smidlee]

There are two approaches, if you follow where the evidence leads you end up theories that fit the evidence. That is called science. The alternative is to start off with a conclusion and spend all you time trying to explain why the evidence doesn't fit.

I follow the evidence and end up with creation. I also consider scripture as sound evidence.

 

[Keachian]

I follow the evidence and end up with creation. I also consider scripture as sound evidence.

That's strange, I follow scripture and end up with TE

 

[lucaspa]

IHow many times have Christians gone back to a passage in the New Testament and gotten something new out of it? I always reread passages and God shows me something new. Why can't that happen with some YECs and the creation account? It seems to me that some people have to protect their interpretation of the creation account as if it was their god.

There you have it. Their particular literal interpretation of scripture is the creationist god.

 

[lucaspa]

I follow the evidence and end up with creation. I also consider scripture as sound evidence.

Evolution is also creation by God. It's simply a different how that God created.

Don't you consider the Creation created by God as sound evidence? Why not?

 

[blah1234]

there are so many issues with combining religion with science. Google theistic evolution and read some of the material. watch the videos on youtube. it doesn't work. modern science mostly disproves God. at best you can attribute the starting force behind the big bang to God, which gives you a sit-on-the-couch God as everything is left to random genetic mutation over billions of years. possible, yes. but I think even that contradicts the nature of God as described in the bible.

what other evidence do we have in this day and age that points to the existence of a divine being? what about miracles? what about visions, dreams and other forms of communication?

 

[Keachian]

there are so many issues with combining religion with science. Google theistic evolution and read some of the material.

There are a few ways that this can be taken, you're looking mainly at either creationist and atheist commentary on what theistic evolution is, or you're misunderstanding what theistic evolutionists are saying about their beliefs, in both cases I believe it comes down to misunderstanding.

watch the videos on youtube. it doesn't work. modern science mostly disproves God. At best you can attribute the starting force behind the big bang to God, which gives you a sit-on-the-couch God as everything is left to random genetic mutation over billions of years. possible, yes. but I think even that contradicts the nature of God as described in the bible.

You're right that it is not the God we find in the Bible, but you're wrong in that you're presupposing metaphysical naturalism to conclude with metaphysical naturalism, you're hanging your argumentation on that idea. To start with all theists believe that God works in and through all "natural" phenomena, so we don't believe that we have random genetic mutation but rather God doing things for his purposes.

what other evidence do we have in this day and age that points to the existence of a divine being? what about miracles? what about visions, dreams and other forms of communication?

It's a miracle that you're breathing, the fact that we attribute this to gravity keeping oxygen in close proximity to the earth and respiration of plants, etc. doesn't make it any less miraculous nor any less the work of God.

 

[Assyrian]

I follow the evidence and end up with creation. I also consider scripture as sound evidence.

The tense you are using doesn't sound right. Would it be more accurate to say:

I followed the evidence and ended up with creation. I also consider scripture as sound evidence.
​

Once you had your creationist interpretation, you decided your interpretation couldn't possible be wrong, so you stopped following the evidence. It is not just scientific evidence you have to keep explaining away, evidence from scripture that there are other interpretations of Genesis has to be rejected too.

 

[Keachian]

I wonder why some YECs reject other understandings of God's word, without even looking into them. The word "liberal" gets thrown out there as if that's an excuse to reject centuries of theological work done by followers of Jesus.

If you believe that the bible is God's word, and someone says to you "Hey, look at how the ancient culture understood it and look at how that meaning applies to us!" then why would you put your fingers in your ears and yell "LIBERAL GARBAGE!!" This is the word of God, if someone can give me insight into it's meaning then why wouldn't I want to hear it? Even if I don't fully agree, I can still learn what it means to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

How many times have Christians gone back to a passage in the New Testament and gotten something new out of it? I always reread passages and God shows me something new. Why can't that happen with some YECs and the creation account? It seems to me that some people have to protect their interpretation of the creation account as if it was their god.

You don't know how many times I've said on this board "We can understand how the ancient people interpretted this and we can apply that meaning to us" and the YEC response has been "I don't even want to ask you about it, you're wrong."

I think it is quite a bit more pervasive in conservative Christianity than just around Genesis 1, I have had discussions with conservative Christians on morals and so on where they put their fingers in their ears, I've also had discussion with others who stick their fingers in their ears when I question their beliefs and I think that is the crux of the matter we are in explaining our faith often challenging their belief, their conception of God and they often take it as an attack on God.

 

[blah1234]

check out this article I came across:

goto Google and type in

wsj man vs god

not a bad read.

 

[Smidlee]

Once you had your creationist interpretation, you decided your interpretation couldn't possible be wrong, so you stopped following the evidence. It is not just scientific evidence you have to keep explaining away, evidence from scripture that there are other interpretations of Genesis has to be rejected too.

Nice theory. I could tell you are wrong but you probably already made up your mind.

 

[blah1234]

what i could see is God creating the big bang. he creates systems via initial conditions then observes and possibly intervenes when he wants to. the bible could be inspired word meant to help us morally as God sees what we are. he could have created other universes that we don't know about; some science supports this fact.

 

[Harry3142]

What we need to take into consideration if we want to understand what the creation stories were trying to convey is to whom they were written. And they were written to a people who had just left Egypt, a nation with a state religion which included a pantheon of gods and goddesses. It also had a creation story, but in the egyptian story the creation concentrated on the coming into existence of their gods and goddesses:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

Note that in this creation story the gods and goddesses created other gods and goddesses for the first five days of creation; it was only on the sixth day that mankind and all the other species of animals were created almost as an afterthought. This creation story would have been well-known by the people whom Moses was in charge of, as religious beliefs and festivals commemorating various gods and goddesses were 'required reading' in Egypt.

If you have ever seen the heiroglyphs depicting the egyptian gods and goddesses, it soon becomes apparent that they are all either the celestial bodies, animals, or combinations of animals. In the egyptian creation story one of them is even identified as the sky itself. So the sun, moon, and stars were to be seen as gods, goddesses, or their garments (Queen Nut), and all the animals that the people saw around them were to be seen as representative of one of the other gods or goddesses (there were over 40 in their pantheon).

When we put the first creation story (Genesis 1:-2:3) next to the egyptian creation epic we can see the process whereby its author methodically stripped every egyptian god and goddess of their existence. The sun, moon, and stars were not gods and goddesses; they were merely objects placed in the heavens to give us light. The sea and land animals who occupied that region alongside the people were merely other species of animals rather than representations of any god or goddess. It was a demythologization of the creation story they already knew. When the reader got to Genesis 2:3, the only being that he could still identify as having divine attributes was also a being who was invisible, so no idol could ever be made of him.

In the second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25), the creation of mankind and the creation of the other animals is separated. In the original egyptian creation story they were all created together and then 'dumped' onto this planet. But the second creation story of Genesis identifies man's creation as being unique. Only he could converse with God and have God converse with him. Only he had the authority to name all the other species of animals, seen as a symbol of power over those animals. Only man had a special garden created for him where he could tend it and live comfortably. And only he, and the companion that God made for him, could lose their innocence by deliberately disobeying God and obtaining the knowledge of good and evil.

If people try to identify the creation stories as a scientific fact, they're missing the purpose for their having been written. It was never to be seen as a 'test tube analysis' of how the earth, and everything on the earth, came into existence. Instead, It was a rebuttal and a demythologization of what the people had already been taught as part of a society that worshipped a pantheon of gods and goddesses.

 

[Greg1234]

What we need to take into consideration if we want to understand what the creation stories were trying to convey is to whom they were written. And they were written to a people who had just left Egypt, a nation with a state religion which included a pantheon of gods and goddesses. It also had a creation story, but in the egyptian story the creation concentrated on the coming into existence of their gods and goddesses:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

Note that in this creation story the gods and goddesses created other gods and goddesses for the first five days of creation; it was only on the sixth day that mankind and all the other species of animals were created almost as an afterthought. This creation story would have been well-known by the people whom Moses was in charge of, as religious beliefs and festivals commemorating various gods and goddesses were 'required reading' in Egypt.

If you have ever seen the heiroglyphs depicting the egyptian gods and goddesses, it soon becomes apparent that they are all either the celestial bodies, animals, or combinations of animals. In the egyptian creation story one of them is even identified as the sky itself. So the sun, moon, and stars were to be seen as gods, goddesses, or their garments (Queen Nut), and all the animals that the people saw around them were to be seen as representative of one of the other gods or goddesses (there were over 40 in their pantheon).

When we put the first creation story (Genesis 1:-2:3) next to the egyptian creation epic we can see the process whereby its author methodically stripped every egyptian god and goddess of their existence. The sun, moon, and stars were not gods and goddesses; they were merely objects placed in the heavens to give us light. The sea and land animals who occupied that region alongside the people were merely other species of animals rather than representations of any god or goddess. It was a demythologization of the creation story they already knew. When the reader got to Genesis 2:3, the only being that he could still identify as having divine attributes was also a being who was invisible, so no idol could ever be made of him.

In the second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25), the creation of mankind and the creation of the other animals is separated. In the original egyptian creation story they were all created together and then 'dumped' onto this planet. But the second creation story of Genesis identifies man's creation as being unique. Only he could converse with God and have God converse with him. Only he had the authority to name all the other species of animals, seen as a symbol of power over those animals. Only man had a special garden created for him where he could tend it and live comfortably. And only he, and the companion that God made for him, could lose their innocence by deliberately disobeying God and obtaining the knowledge of good and evil.

If people try to identify the creation stories as a scientific fact, they're missing the purpose for their having been written. It was never to be seen as a 'test tube analysis' of how the earth, and everything on the earth, came into existence. Instead, It was a rebuttal and a demythologization of what the people had already been taught as part of a society that worshipped a pantheon of gods and goddesses.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7608849-55/#post59800032