Open-Minded Creationism!

[MrrrrrNiceGuy]

Well, you know we can all continue to senselessly argue back and forth the concepts involved in different Creationist theories, or we can just adopt a standard that neither accepts nor rejects any of the following theories:

• Young Earth Creation
• Old Earth Creation
• Gap Theory
• Theistic Evolution

Such a standard is what I like to call Open-Minded Creationism and this is what I put on my profile under my Origins Theory. Open-Minded Creationism accepts the notion that the creation story found in the book of Genesis is much too vague for anyone to make any sense of it, but it also confirms that no matter how it actually happened, God was behind all of it 100%. Open-Minded Creationism both accepts and rejects certain aspects of all 4 of the above mentioned creation theories; but whatever is accepted or rejected is still based on one's own opinions. As a matter of fact, all 4 of these creation theories may actually be entirely incorrect; we just don't know it yet.

We can all make arguments about how the creation story took place and some of these may actually make credible arguments, while others are just plain silly. Still, there are others that are just too difficult to grasp one way or the other. However, the bottom line is that for now is all comes down to one's own opinions.

Open-Minded Creationism accepts the notion that for now the actual Creation story is much too difficult for the human brain to really understand and is beyond anyone's comprehension. Until we enter into eternity will we truly understand how it all came to be and we will learn all the things that we never knew before.

Do I hear an amen?

 

[HSetterfield]

No, I'm afraid not.

We have spoken at colleges and churches too many times not to know that the truth is very important to people. If God is not telling the straightforward truth in Genesis, then where else is His Word suspect?

In addition, the data itself point to a very young creation, universe and all -- definitely less than ten thousand years old.

The gap theory, the day-age theory, theistic evolution -- all are explicitly denied in Genesis, one way or another. The six day creation is affirmed, however in both Exodus 20 and Exodus 31, under no uncertain terms.

God either knows how to communicate the truth to us or He does not. Which is it?

Of course there will be a lot to learn on the other side of the grave. But a good place to start is to believe what has already been told to us in clear and unambiguous terms.

 

[Melethiel]

If God is not telling the straightforward truth in Genesis,

God is telling the truth in Genesis. The thing is, truth =/= literal.

 

[busterdog]

No, I'm afraid not.

We have spoken at colleges and churches too many times not to know that the truth is very important to people. If God is not telling the straightforward truth in Genesis, then where else is His Word suspect?

In addition, the data itself point to a very young creation, universe and all -- definitely less than ten thousand years old.

The gap theory, the day-age theory, theistic evolution -- all are explicitly denied in Genesis, one way or another. The six day creation is affirmed, however in both Exodus 20 and Exodus 31, under no uncertain terms.

God either knows how to communicate the truth to us or He does not. Which is it?

Of course there will be a lot to learn on the other side of the grave. But a good place to start is to believe what has already been told to us in clear and unambiguous terms.

"For now we see as in a mirror dimly, and then we shall see face to face."

Guessing you would agree that "vague" means it is really hard for us in our present, fallen state, to appreciate the truth when it is stated simply and clearly.

As much as I like some models, the frontiers of knowledge on these areas are so vast, that open mindedness is a pretty good idea.

 

[Mallon]

God either knows how to communicate the truth to us or He does not. Which is it?

God never promises that knowing His truth is always going to be easy or straightforward. In fact, quite the opposite is true. God tells us in Proverbs 25:2 that He has hidden much from us, and that it is to our own glory to dig deeper and find those hidden truths.

 

[HSetterfield]

Granted, but one of the things He has revealed extraordinarily clearly is creation, both in time and the order of.

He is either telling the truth or He is not...

 

[Mallon]

Was Jesus telling the truth when he told the parable of the Good Samaritan?

You seem awfully caught up in insisting that truth be told only through historically factual occurences. I fail to see why this must be the case.

 

[MrrrrrNiceGuy]

Granted, but one of the things He has revealed extraordinarily clearly is creation, both in time and the order of.

Bleh! This is much too opiniated IMHO.

 

[Servant222]

I've said it once, but it bears repeating.....

Whenever I read discussions like this, I am always reminded of how literally centuries of scholars came to believe that, according to their interpretation of the Bible, the Earth was the centre of the Universe.

As mounting evidence proved otherwise, they needed to resort to ever more far-fetched explanations to maintain their belief.

I think we are like a puppy dog that looks up at the screen of a television set and notices something, but never in a million years could ever figure out how that picture got there. We may be stubborn enough to believe that we have the correct explanation, but I think, given how great God is, and how really puny we are, we always have to maintain a very healthy respect for how little we really know, how badly we can misinterpret something, and therefore how humble we always have to be.

This is meant to be a neutral comment, and not one at all that questions the infallibility of the Bible. It does, however, suggest that we need to be careful with absolutes.

 

[artybloke]

There's an image that I came across when doing my theology degree: that we all have this tendency to look down the well of biblical history, at the clear water at the bottom of it, and seeing our own faces reflected in it, essentially find what we want to find in it, not what's actually there.

The idea that God makes everything easy for us is pernicious, but untrue.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Granted, but one of the things He has revealed extraordinarily clearly is creation, both in time and the order of.

He is either telling the truth or He is not...

This is my body.

Is this statement "extraordinarily clear"?

the history of the church says a loud NO.

Gen 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

is this statement a proposition of how old the heaven and the earth is?

clearly not. the word beginning is not fixed in time, it is a generalized label, not a description.

i suspect that "extraordinarily clear" really means:
clear in my interpretative system which is superior and more Christian than yours. which is a statement about the color of your spectacles and your inability of see their presence on your face, not a statement about the clarity of your vision, nor a statement about the visibility of the objects in your field of vision.

What people consider truth is very culturally and community dependent. To ignore the idea that factuality is a social construct that has greatly varied over the time period that the Scriptures have been written is to raise your community's interpretation of Scripture to the level of God's Himself, and to forgot that your are thinking about and dealing with "your interpretation" not with the text itself. What is a fact is more a product of your mental structure matrix derived primarily from the culture and society you are a part of than any objective, standalone not-interpretation-but-the-reality-behind it that God may be thinking.

 

[HSetterfield]

Mallon -- a parable is listed as a parable. There is no comparison between that and the clear writing of Genesis as historical fact. There is nothing in the structure of the grammar or the language itself in Genesis to indicate it is being considered anything but eyewitness truth being put down by those who lived it.

MrrrrrNiceGuy -- I'm sorry that you considered 'opinionated' believing what the Bible says. But that is where I stand, on the Bible.

Servant222 -- yes, we need to be careful about our own absolutes, but when the Bible presents something absolutely, should we try to compromise it?

artybloke -- no, God does not make many things easy for us. But He does make some things very clear. The Genesis account is one of them.

rmwilliamsll -- the key to understanding anything in the Bible is to let Bible explain Bible. What any church or tradition has done with a Bible passage comes way behind that. When Jesus said, "this is my body", that was a one time thing. He did not say "this will always be my body." He did say in John 6 that the entire business of His body and blood was a spiritual one. That needs to be taken into account.

Regarding Genesis 1, you cannot stop with the first verse. It describes a day by day account of what happened. Is it to be taken seriously? Here is what is said in Exodus:
20:11 -- "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

and in 31:14-17 -- "Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For in six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to ovserve the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day ghe abstained from work and rested."

Folks, let me ask you, then -- what about Genesis 1 and the two referenced passages above is NOT clear and simple?

Edit note: by the way, I definitely disagree with those who think you must be YEC to be saved. Jesus saves, not any intellectual understanding on our parts. However I will be so bold as to say that I think those who are born again believers will find they become YEC, either in this life or later!

 

[MrrrrrNiceGuy]

Hands down, the creation story in the Bible is in no way tied in with the most important message in the Bible--the salvation message! Therefore, no matter what anyone believes about the creation story that will not decide whether they go to heaven or hell, so as long as they account the fact that God had His hand in it 100%.

Question: How do we really know how long a day is in the creation story? It does not say that these were 24-hour days. Hmmm. . .

2 Peter 3:7-9 (New Living Translation):

7 And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed.


8 But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. 9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.

So, how long is a day in eternity, really? 1,000 years, maybe? Could be, but I'm not saying it is.

HSetterfield, you did say that the Bible is often used to interpret itself, so make you sure take everything into account before trying to fit it all together.

 

[HSetterfield]

MrrrrrNiceGuy -- although it is Jesus who saves, and only Jesus, there are a tremendous number of people who have felt they must choose between the Bible and science, based on Genesis. So when Barry and I give presentations on his work, we do emphasize that the Bible is truly God's word and that scientific data fully backs up the Genesis account. I seriously cannot count the number of people who have come up to us afterwards, sometimes in tears, thanking us for what we have presented. The battle inside them has ceased and they know they can count on the Bible to tell them the truth -- if about Genesis, then about all of it. This may not be a focal point for many, but it has been a focal point for enough of our brothers and sisters in the Lord for us to be willing to keep on keepin' on.

How long is a day in Genesis? What determines a day? The rotation of the earth on its axis in relation to a light source. Thus, Genesis specifies evening and morning and then uses ordinal numbers for the days. How else would YOU describe a day before the human invention of hours and minutes?

If the rotation of the earth were slower or longer, we would have some serious problems with the rest of Genesis 1 concerning the ability of the earth to sustain life.

The Hebrew 'yom' is used like our 'day' in that it can have a variety of meanings. However, unless explained specifically or used with a prepositional phrase, it means 24 hours. "In the day OF THE LORD" incorporates the prepositional phrase as do several similar phrases, and thus means an indeterminate amount of time. When the Bible says a thousand years is like a day to the Lord, it also says a day is like a thousand years, so we need to be careful. The impact of that statement appears to be that the Lord Himself is outside of time and not affected by it.

 

[MrrrrrNiceGuy]

When the Bible says a thousand years is like a day to the Lord, it also says a day is like a thousand years, so we need to be careful. The impact of that statement appears to be that the Lord Himself is outside of time and not affected by it.

Exactly my point! That is why I question that the days in the Genesis creation story are actually 24-hour days. We do not really know how often the sun rises and sets in eternity, either.

 

[Assyrian]

rmwilliamsll -- the key to understanding anything in the Bible is to let Bible explain Bible. What any church or tradition has done with a Bible passage comes way behind that. When Jesus said, "this is my body", that was a one time thing. He did not say "this will always be my body." He did say in John 6 that the entire business of His body and blood was a spiritual one. That needs to be taken into account.

Are you saying the bread became the body of Christ that one time? If you think the days in Genesis are repeated, it is nothing compared to instruction on the Lord's Supper. We find it in Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22 in Luke 22:19 we read: And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." If Jesus was giving them his literal body and blood how were they to 'do this in remembrance' unless it was his body and blood when they celebrated the Lord's Supper too? Paul repeats the message in 1Cor 11.

If you want grounds to insist on a literal interpretation, there is little better or plainer than the discussion in John 6. I should know I was brought up a Catholic. John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Yes I agree it is symbolic. Jesus explains to Peter at the very end of the discussion in John 6 that it was about the Holy Spirit and the word's Jesus spoke. But We have the same thing with the days of creation. They are only mentioned in three places, all books Moses either wrote or edited. But just as we have Jesus explaining about the bread, Moses also explains about God's days in Psalm 90:4 a psalm based around Genesis and the creation. This is repeated by Peter talking about God's timing in creation, the flood and the end of the world.

So while the creation days are found in the writings of Moses, (who tells us we can't always take God's days literally), no one else in the bible takes up the idea of God creating the world in six days. On the other hand, what we do find repeated is Moses explanation of what God's days mean.

Regarding Genesis 1, you cannot stop with the first verse. It describes a day by day account of what happened. Is it to be taken seriously? Here is what is said in Exodus:
20:11 -- "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

and in 31:14-17 -- "Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For in six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to ovserve the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day ghe abstained from work and rested."

Folks, let me ask you, then -- what about Genesis 1 and the two referenced passages above is NOT clear and simple?

The last line isn't. The more literal versions translate it
on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.
If we are to talk that literally it means God was tired out by all his work of creation and was refreshed after he had a rest. This cannot be literal.

Edit note: by the way, I definitely disagree with those who think you must be YEC to be saved. Jesus saves, not any intellectual understanding on our parts.

However I will be so bold as to say that I think those who are born again believers will find they become YEC, either in this life or later!

The Hebrew 'yom' is used like our 'day' in that it can have a variety of meanings. However, unless explained specifically or used with a prepositional phrase, it means 24 hours. "In the day OF THE LORD" incorporates the prepositional phrase as do several similar phrases, and thus means an indeterminate amount of time. When the Bible says a thousand years is like a day to the Lord, it also says a day is like a thousand years, so we need to be careful. The impact of that statement appears to be that the Lord Himself is outside of time and not affected by it.

Most references to the day of the Lord don't have a preposition in the phrase.

Interestingly, when Peter uses the phrase in 2Pet 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up... He is covering not just the Lord's return, but events most YECs would put a thousand years later after the millennium.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon -- a parable is listed as a parable.

Not always, it isn't. Jesus didn't introduce all his parables as such. I was hoping you might hit upon that point. Jesus trusted us to use our intellect to discern spiritual truth and values from story context.

There is nothing in the structure of the grammar or the language itself in Genesis to indicate it is being considered anything but eyewitness truth being put down by those who lived it.

Except for the chorus/verse structure, of course: "And God said, 'Let there be...' ... And there was evening, and there was morning - the X day."

 

[Willtor]

Regarding Genesis 1, you cannot stop with the first verse. It describes a day by day account of what happened. Is it to be taken seriously?

I hate to make a nitpick, but I don't want this to go unaddressed. I'm sure you don't really mean to ask this question, as most people, here, do take all of Scripture seriously. The question is not one of seriousness. I assume you meant to ask, "Is it to be taken literally?" Again, I hate to pick on something so small, but realize that it does fundamentally misrepresent the views of the people you are trying to persuade.

 

[HSetterfield]

No I DON'T mean 'literally' because that would depend on the original language. I do mean seriously as a straightforward historical account. Nor am I trying to impress anyone. I am trying to stand up for the Bible as fact and not myth in Genesis 1-11 especially. That section is the foundation of the entire rest of the Bible. If we cannot trust God to tell us the straightforward truth about beginnings, why trust Him to tell us any of the rest of it?

Assyrian, 'of the Lord' is a prepositional phrase. I stand by what I said.

Mallon, the parables are clearly marked by the writers of the Gospels if not by Jesus Himself. Genesis, on the other hand, presents itself as a straightforward historical account. It needs to be accepted or rejected on its own terms, not on terms thrust upon it.

MrrrrNiceGuy, if the word yom means anything along with evening and morning, the indication is that the earth was rotating on its axis and there was a light source. That is why I said if it were rotating any faster or slower than now, the rest of creation would not have been possible, for the earth would not be able to support life as we know it.

 

[Willtor]

No I DON'T mean 'literally' because that would depend on the original language. I do mean seriously as a straightforward historical account. Nor am I trying to impress anyone. I am trying to stand up for the Bible as fact and not myth in Genesis 1-11 especially. That section is the foundation of the entire rest of the Bible. If we cannot trust God to tell us the straightforward truth about beginnings, why trust Him to tell us any of the rest of it?

To turn it around, somewhat, suppose I took the parables literally (spend some time on CF and you'll see this isn't so far fetched). I could accuse you of taking them lightly. But you wouldn't be concerned, in the least, that you weren't serious about them, though you might be concerned that I had misunderstood you (honestly or deliberately) and you might wish to correct me. But whatever I thought, you would know that not only were you taking them seriously, but that you probably had a better understanding of them than I had.

Now, it might be that the other TEs and I are mistaken in our respective understandings of Genesis. But you would be hard-pressed to show that we weren't serious.