Origin of Life

[notto]

Google Philo to start. His works will give you enough reading to begin.

Did Philo think the world was created in 6 days?

 

[Critias]

Nope, but he knew Genesis was a historical narrative. Something TEs reject.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Nope, but he knew Genesis was a historical narrative. Something TEs reject.

you keep repeating this assertation and it is wrong, there are conservative and there are liberal TE's. Look at someone like Terry Gray, who AFAIK is the only person who has gone through a church trial over the issues.

http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/general_assembly_actions.html

the only issue was if God had taken physical dust or a pre-existent chimp-like creature to create Adam.

Warfield, Machen, Howard VanTill etc lots of very conservative folks have been TE. All of which claim Genesis 1-5 is historical and worded in the science of that day.


....

 

[Critias]

you keep repeating this assertation and it is wrong, there are conservative and there are liberal TE's. Look at someone like Terry Gray, who AFAIK is the only person who has gone through a church trial over the issues.

http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/general_assembly_actions.html

the only issue was if God had taken physical dust or a pre-existent chimp-like creature to create Adam.

Warfield, Machen, Howard VanTill etc lots of very conservative folks have been TE. All of which claim Genesis 1-5 is historical and worded in the science of that day.


....

My apologies. I will be more clear to say most TEs on this board reject Genesis as being a narrative.

 

[gluadys]

My apologies. I will be more clear to say most TEs on this board reject Genesis as being a narrative.

I would say most TEs see Genesis as a narrative. I certainly do. I see the first creation account as a poetic narrative and the second as a mythical story--which is even more plainly a narrative.

Both tell stories. That is what a narrative is. As opposed to lyrical poetry, genealogies, commandments, etc.

Some narratives also recount fact. But any story, whether told in poetry or prose, whether fictional or fact, is a narrative.

 

[JVD]

As the OP...I am very thankful for those who took the time to expain the differences between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation. I am not a scientist and just remember the term from school. Obviously my memory is faulty.

Still, it is interesting to me. I am most interested in the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe. The bible does have a story for both...God spoke them into existence.

I suppose the study of both issues is as much philosophical as it is scientific. For YEC...do you think it is sacreligious to even study the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe? Does that somehow imply that we are assuming the bible is wrong?

 

[Micaiah]

No. It is not a sin to speculate about the natural processes that may have occured while the world was created. I'm sure there are many fine Christian cosmologists. That is providing their theories and conjectures are not elevated to the same level of authority as the plain teaching of Scripture.

By the way. What does OP stand for?

 

[JVD]

OP=Original Post...I started this thread and haven't been back much because of computer problems.

No. It is not a sin to speculate about the natural processes that may have occured while the world was created. I'm sure there are many fine Christian cosmologists. That is providing their theories and conjectures are not elevated to the same level of authority as the plain teaching of Scripture.

I would tend to agree with your statement, but I wonder if YECs do agree with it. I do know christian cosmologists who study such things as the "big bang". But I don't know of any YEC christian cosmologists. In fact, it is just this type of thing, (stars and starlight), that caused me to question a young earth in the first place.

 

[Micaiah]

I agree. In my mind the question of starlight and time is the one that is hardest to reconcile with a young earth.

 

[Critias]

There is nothing wrong at all with studying this world. That isn't the problem yecs see. It is the fact that so many come out and say the Biblical author's intent is wrong because of modern men today.

It is like shaking your fist at God and saying I know more than you. Probably not the best thing to be doing...

 

[Micaiah]

OP=Original Post...I started this thread and haven't been back much because of computer problems.




I would tend to agree with your statement, but I wonder if YECs do agree with it. I do know christian cosmologists who study such things as the "big bang". But I don't know of any YEC christian cosmologists. In fact, it is just this type of thing, (stars and starlight), that caused me to question a young earth in the first place.

There are a number of articles on the AIG site that deal with these topics.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp

 

[artybloke]

It is the fact that so many come out and say the Biblical author's intent is wrong because of modern men today.

Another misrepresentation, I see. You're very good at that, aren't you? Nobody so far as I can see has said that the Biblical author's intent is wrong. TE's, however, do not accept that the intention of the authors was to give a modernistic scientific account, because the Bible is not a modernistic scientific text, it's a "mythical" or "poetic" narrative.

In otherwords, we think that the interpretation of the authors' intent given by YEC's is wrong.

It is like shaking your fist at God and saying I know more than you.

It is more like shaking your fist at a bunch of lying creationists and saying I know more than they do.

 

[Critias]

Another misrepresentation, I see. You're very good at that, aren't you? Nobody so far as I can see has said that the Biblical author's intent is wrong. TE's, however, do not accept that the intention of the authors was to give a modernistic scientific account, because the Bible is not a modernistic scientific text, it's a "mythical" or "poetic" narrative.

In otherwords, we think that the interpretation of the authors' intent given by YEC's is wrong.

So what was the author's intent with speaking about creation in six days? Why use the word yom and define it as evening and morning if it wasn't meant to be understood as days?

Please support your assertion that Genesis is mythical and/or poetic.

It is more like shaking your fist at a bunch of lying creationists and saying I know more than they do.

Ah, and the truth is shown. Pride of intellect.

 

[JVD]

I read the articles on the aig site. They are interesting but none seem to give an adequate explanation of how starlight so far away could have reached earth if the universe is only a few thousand years old. It seems that this is one of the most perplexing questions for yec.

Of course, there are possible explanations and one of them may be true. I'm not so sure the big bang theory has a very solid foundation either. It seems that they are always patching that theory up to make it meet all the new info that is found by better telescopes and space probes.

All in all, it is very interesting to say the least and it makes me leave open the possiblity that the universe is older than just a few thousand years. I would think that most yec would also want to leave that possibility open if they are doing honest research. One must always be humble enough to consider the possibility that they are wrong.

 

[Micaiah]

Our understanding of what happened in those first days and of starlight is limited. Scripture plainly asserts the universe was created in six days.

 

[artybloke]

So what was the author's intent with speaking about creation in six days?

Why not ask the authors? Oh, I'm sorry they're dead. One thing it was not was to be scientific or historical in any modern sense, as that would be anachronistic.

Ah, and the truth is shown. Pride of intellect.

You like taking the speck out of other peoples' eyes and ignoring the log in your own, don't you?

 

[Micaiah]

Why not ask the authors? Oh, I'm sorry they're dead.

The Author is very much alive actually.

 

[Critias]

Why not ask the authors? Oh, I'm sorry they're dead. One thing it was not was to be scientific or historical in any modern sense, as that would be anachronistic.

Do you believe that God inspired what is written within the Bible - OT and NT?

You like taking the speck out of other peoples' eyes and ignoring the log in your own, don't you?

Yes, I do this, as I am not perfect. And in this case I was also pointing out what I saw you doing.

Do you make such mistakes in your own life?

 

[artybloke]

Do you believe that God inspired what is written within the Bible - OT and NT?

Yes of course. He also inspired Shakespeare, Homer, Virgil, and every other great artist throughout history. Unfortunately, He himself has never written a book or penned a poem. I don't believe in verbal dictation. God is not the author of Scripture. Human beings are. Verbal inspiration is a nonsense thought up sometime at the end of the 19th century by people who were scared of the modern world. God speaks through fallible human beings who cannot step out of their world views and languages.

And in this case I was also pointing out what I saw you doing.

And I am pointing out that I have seen you persistently misrepresent the views of TE's, arrogantly assume your interpretation of scripture as the only possible and then claim a spiritual superiority over other people.

 

[Critias]

Yes of course. He also inspired Shakespeare, Homer, Virgil, and every other great artist throughout history. Unfortunately, He himself has never written a book or penned a poem. I don't believe in verbal dictation. God is not the author of Scripture. Human beings are. Verbal inspiration is a nonsense thought up sometime at the end of the 19th century by people who were scared of the modern world. God speaks through fallible human beings who cannot step out of their world views and languages.

I see. So you don't believe what the word inspired really means? It is a word used in the Greek to mean moved by, such as a boat being moved in the sea. Like a strong wind. 2 Peter 1:21 supports this as well as 2 Timothy 3:16.

I agree man penned the Scriptures. But what does author actually mean? It actually means the one who created what is written. So, you state God is not the author of the Bible, which by definition means, what is written in the Bible did not come from God, but from man's own thoughts when thinking about God. I am assuming this is the type of inspiration you subscribe to.

2 Peter 1:20 also supports that Scripture is not from man's own thoughts.

And I am pointing out that I have seen you persistently misrepresent the views of TE's, arrogantly assume your interpretation of scripture as the only possible and then claim a spiritual superiority over other people.

Well, we can all use our own accusers. Thanks for pointing out my faults, I will try and work on them.