Question to creationists...

JohnR7 said:

The questions assumes that there would be a conflict or a discrepancy somewhere. Your telling people that "their" interpretation does not line up with gods creation. The question is an attack on people's interpretation. Then you wonder why no one wants to answer it.

Click to expand...

John, this would be convincing except for the FACT that Christians ALWAYS accept extrabiblical evidence to alter their interpretation.

You and Badfish do so for Luke 2:1. You do so for Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. You do so for those passages in Job where God keeps the oceans behind gates.

Your fallacy is in thinking that is it "their" interpretation. It is not man's interpretation. We are taught by the Holy Spirit. So how can God conflict with Himself? He can't. God is always true to Himself.

Click to expand...

But you don't let God be true to Himself. You insist that YOUR interpretation is supreme. Therefore, by refusing to alter your interpretation -- man's interpretation -- you are the ones having God conflict.

Sorry, John, but I see no indication that either you or Badfish is taught by the Holy Spirit while St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, James McCosh, Rev. Charles Kingsley, Rev. William Buckland, Rev. Adam Sedgwick, Rev. John Polkinghorne, Rev. Bernhard Anderson and others are not taught by the Holy Spirit.

To argue that you are taught by the Holy Spirit because it gives you your literal interpretation simply argues in circles. You are still faced with the fact that God's Creation conflicts with your literal interpretation of the Bible.

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Click to expand...

This proves you are not taught by the Holy Spirit. Once again you have taken scripture out of context to mean something it does not and use it as false witness.

Peter is referring to a SPECIFIC EVENT. It is in 2 Peter 16-19: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy [notice Peter is callling the EYEWITNESS event "prophecy"]; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts."

Then it continues. The "prophecy" is not scripture per se, but their eyewitness to Jesus' life.

You know, John, you should have kept reading in chapter 2, and take heed for this description of creationism:

2 Peter 2:1-3 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgement now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbers not."

Oh, HOW that fits creationism. The covetousness of science that they have to make the Bible BE science! The heresy that is creationism!. The denial of the Lord. I have posted how, in the Arkansas trial, the YECers ended up denying God as Creator. Do I need to do so again? There is also the denial in ID of God as Creator.

Maybe you should really ponder these verses and consider that "damnation slumbers not".

Oncedeceived said:

The Bible and God's creation are in agreement, I just haven't figured out the whole of it. ... I also think that those who have contributed to Science in regards to Evolution are presupposed against God.

Click to expand...

For the first may I suggest the book Is God a Creationist? edited by Roland Frye? Also Science and Religion by Ian Barbour. The chapters in the first by Bernhard Anderson and Nahum Sarna will tell you how Genesis and God's Creation are in agreement.

As to the second, that is untrue. At least half of evolutionary biologists have been devout theists. Darwin was a devout theist at the time he wrote Origin. He doubted his faith later for personal reasons, but not because of evolution.

"But this is the oldest canard and non sequitor in the debater's book. To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. ...
"Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G.G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic, Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs ... ."
SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992.

lucaspa said:

For the first may I suggest the book Is God a Creationist? edited by Roland Frye? Also Science and Religion by Ian Barbour. The chapters in the first by Bernhard Anderson and Nahum Sarna will tell you how Genesis and God's Creation are in agreement.

As to the second, that is untrue. At least half of evolutionary biologists have been devout theists. Darwin was a devout theist at the time he wrote Origin. He doubted his faith later for personal reasons, but not because of evolution.

"But this is the oldest canard and non sequitor in the debater's book. To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. ...
"Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G.G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic, Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs ... ."
SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992.

Click to expand...

Thank you and I most certainly will check out the books.

I am sorry, because I did generalize and I hate when people do that. I was thinking about Gould and Hawking when I said that and forgot about all the others. I stand corrected. Good job!!!

Arikay said:

badfish:
But that is not an answer to my question.
Please do not try to change the subject and give me a straight answer my question.

One thing interesting to note is that for all intents and purposes, when dealing with evolution, my interpretation of the bible is the same as many christians here. Are you saying that those people are not "true christians?"

Pudmuddle:
Do you believe the earth and planets orbit the sun and that the earth is round?

So you choose your interpretation of gods words. over all sound science, or only some sound science?

Click to expand...

I don't interpret God's word. I read it and believe it. There is no reason to doubt the Genesis account. It stands on it's own. Men complicate it, they come up with endless theorys and debates, because?
Maybe they find it too difficult to believe as a child.
The most uneducated people in the world can read the Bible in faith and be saved. They can look at the world around them and see that it must have had a designer.
That is all we really need to know. If God inspired the writer to say "six days" I believe it was six days.

pudmuddle said:

I don't interpret God's word. I read it and believe it. There is no reason to doubt the Genesis account. It stands on it's own. Men complicate it, they come up with endless theorys and debates, because?
Maybe they find it too difficult to believe as a child.
The most uneducated people in the world can read the Bible in faith and be saved. They can look at the world around them and see that it must have had a designer.
That is all we really need to know. If God inspired the writer to say "six days" I believe it was six days.

Click to expand...

But you do not apply that consistently.

Example 1: When Luke says "all the world" was taxed, you do not believe the entire planet was under Roman taxation.

Example 2: When Joshua commands the sun to stand still, you do not believe the sun stood still. You believe that the earth stopped in its rotation, or God did something quirky with time.

Why do you do this? Because it is clear the literal meaning is not appropriate. And so it is with Genesis 1-3. Both because the literal meanings contradict established science (as in example 2 above), and because the context implies we have a metaphor (as in example 1 above).

The metaphorical context of Genesis 1-3 is clear. Trees with symbolic fruit. Talking snakes. God walking around as if He were a corporeal being. Humans called "man" and "mother of all". Screams "this is not literal" in letters ten feet high to my mind.

Incidently, do you think you and Badfish could get your story straight? He's saying that one can only interpret and properly understand Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; you're saying you just have to read it and believe the literal plain meaning of the text. Which is it?

pudmuddle said:

I don't interpret God's word. I read it and believe it. There is no reason to doubt the Genesis account. It stands on it's own. Men complicate it, they come up with endless theorys and debates, because?
Maybe they find it too difficult to believe as a child.
The most uneducated people in the world can read the Bible in faith and be saved. They can look at the world around them and see that it must have had a designer.
That is all we really need to know. If God inspired the writer to say "six days" I believe it was six days.

Click to expand...

When you read anyhing you interpret it.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

But you do not apply that consistently.

Example 1: When Luke says "all the world" was taxed, you do not believe the entire planet was under Roman taxation.

Example 2: When Joshua commands the sun to stand still, you do not believe the sun stood still. You believe that the earth stopped in its rotation, or God did something quirky with time.

Why do you do this? Because it is clear the literal meaning is not appropriate. And so it is with Genesis 1-3. Both because the literal meanings contradict established science (as in example 2 above), and because the context implies we have a metaphor (as in example 1 above).

The metaphorical context of Genesis 1-3 is clear. Trees with symbolic fruit. Talking snakes. God walking around as if He were a corporeal being. Humans called "man" and "mother of all". Screams "this is not literal" in letters ten feet high to my mind.

Incidently, do you think you and Badfish could get your story straight? He's saying that one can only interpret and properly understand Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; you're saying you just have to read it and believe the literal plain meaning of the text. Which is it?

Click to expand...

It only screams "not literal" to you because you are reading it with a biased veiwpoint.
I see nothing in the script that implys I should not take it literal.
Creation is a miracle. Science can not explain miracles, because they happen outside the realm of science.
Sorry, that I did not consult Badfish before posting. IF a passage of scriputure were difficult to understand, I agree that praying for guidence from the Holy Spirit would certainly be appropriate.

Arikay said:

Ok, Karl gave a better response than I could have.

However, I would mention that when you read it, you Always interpret it. You appear to be taking the Literal interpretation route.

So, as with the examples Karl said, what happens when gods creation contradicts your interpretation (or your reading) of the bible. Are you wrong, or is gods creation wrong?

Click to expand...

God's creation has not contradicted His word. So your question is irrelelavent.

pudmuddle said:

It only screams "not literal" to you because you are reading it with a biased veiwpoint.

Click to expand...

No. It screams "not literal" because of what I just said:

"The metaphorical context of Genesis 1-3 is clear. Trees with symbolic fruit. Talking snakes. God walking around as if He were a corporeal being. Humans called "man" and "mother of all". Screams "this is not literal" in letters ten feet high to my mind."

I see nothing in the script that implys I should not take it literal.

Click to expand...

Apart from what I've just pointed out. Why do you think talking snakes and trees with symbolic fruit are best taken literally?

Creation is a miracle. Science can not explain miracles, because they happen outside the realm of science.

Click to expand...

You know that Creation is a supernatural miracle rather than brought about by natural processes how?

Sorry, that I did not consult Badfish before posting. IF a passage of scriputure were difficult to understand, I agree that praying for guidence from the Holy Spirit would certainly be appropriate.

Click to expand...

So - most of the time He's not needed. Gives Him some time off I suppose. Just trying to get a coherent model of fundamentalist hermeneutics.

Hope no one minds me jumping in....

Karl is right in that much of the Creation story is symbolic... but just because it is symbolic does not mean that it didn't happen that way. There are many things in Genesis that represent mankind as a whole, and all sorts of other things too. These representations are to be recognized, and learned from, but that does not entail the disregarding of the literal part of the Creation story.

You say that the talking serpent screams not to be taken literally... it seems that you're under the idea that this was purely a different snake, not satan merely taking on one of the plethora of forms at his disposal.

On a different note... it seems strange that the Creationists here are merely letting those that would poke wholes in Creationism do just that without in return arguments against the obvious alternative; which is Evolution. Just an observation... and that is not to say that those arguing do not have the right, or respected opprutunity to argue their opinion.

Human_Clay said:

On a different note... it seems strange that the Creationists here are merely letting those that would poke wholes in Creationism do just that without in return arguments against the obvious alternative; which is Evolution. Just an observation... and that is not to say that those arguing do not have the right, or respected opprutunity to argue their opinion.

Click to expand...

we're not really poking holes in that sense, since the theory was falsified over a hundred years ago.

Human_Clay said:

Hope no one minds me jumping in....

Karl is right in that much of the Creation story is symbolic... but just because it is symbolic does not mean that it didn't happen that way. There are many things in Genesis that represent mankind as a whole, and all sorts of other things too. These representations are to be recognized, and learned from, but that does not entail the disregarding of the literal part of the Creation story.

You say that the talking serpent screams not to be taken literally... it seems that you're under the idea that this was purely a different snake, not satan merely taking on one of the plethora of forms at his disposal.

On a different note... it seems strange that the Creationists here are merely letting those that would poke wholes in Creationism do just that without in return arguments against the obvious alternative; which is Evolution. Just an observation... and that is not to say that those arguing do not have the right, or respected opprutunity to argue their opinion.

Click to expand...

The false dichotomy rears its ugly head again. Alleged evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism. Young Earth Creationism for example was falsifed by Christian geologist before Darwin published Origin of Species.

If creationism can be defended it should be possible to do so without attacking evolution. However, what we see is that falsifications of YEC that can't be answered abound.

Just saying that God did it is not an answer unless you think that God also falsified the evidence regarding how He did it.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

OK, Spirit-filled and Spirit-led Christian here, so you can put away your arguments of "if you were led by the Spirit . . ." when discussing it with me. I would find that highly offensive.

I believe the Bible is the true and inerrant Word of God. I think that the Creation account in Genesis is absolutely and 100% correct. I also understand that God was not intending to provide us with a detailed scientific account of HOW He created everything. How could He, in so short of a space? And why would He, since the purpose of those Scriptures is to tell us what is sufficient for His ultimate message of Salvation?

If God did use evolution as part of His creative process, how would He have described it in a way that ancient societies and modern societies alike could understand it? I know I would have a hard time with that one, and I consider myself a decent writer. I think the way God described it works pretty well for His intended purpose.

When I speak to my small children, I often have to simplify things greatly. Everything I tell them is true, and I try to tell them everything needed for them to understand the point at issue, but it would be silly to think that I could explain everything in its full detail. It is unecessary and would be fruitless.

I think God did a great job (obviously) in telling us in general terms what happened in a way sufficient for us to understand what we need to know for salvation.

Bottom line facts:

1. You (and I mean WHOEVER reads this) do not take every verse in the Bible literally.

2. Christians interpret Scripture differently all the time, which is why we have so many competing theological dogmas about SO many things.

3. Christians believe wholeheartedly in just about everything science tells them until it comes to an area which disagrees with their interpretation of Genesis.

4. God can be the omnipotent creator and still have used evolution as the means of that creation.

5. The only reason evolution creates a challenge to our Christian Faith is because certain Christian groups insist on equating evolution as a scientific theory with philosophical naturalism.

Christianity takes a pounding with every Young Earth Creationist presentation.

Human_Clay said:

Hope no one minds me jumping in....

Karl is right in that much of the Creation story is symbolic... but just because it is symbolic does not mean that it didn't happen that way. There are many things in Genesis that represent mankind as a whole, and all sorts of other things too. These representations are to be recognized, and learned from, but that does not entail the disregarding of the literal part of the Creation story.

Click to expand...

The mythological elements do make it run more easily as non-literal, especially the conflict between the plain reading of the first and second account

You say that the talking serpent screams not to be taken literally... it seems that you're under the idea that this was purely a different snake, not satan merely taking on one of the plethora of forms at his disposal.

Click to expand...

I do think it's a snake, not Satan per se. This is because there is no Satan concept in the early writings of the OT. Satan starts to make an appearence in Job, which is generally regarded as a fairly late - post-exilic - writing, after the Babylonian captivity which had exposed the Jews to Zoroastrian dualism. This is notable when you compare the pre-Exilic Samuel - "Now God wanted to bring trouble on Israel, so he moved David to take a census" against the post-Exilic Chronicles - "Now Satan wanted to bring trouble on Israel, so he moved David to take a census". Theological development.

Secondly, why call it a snake so clearly if it is actually Satan. Why not say "now, Satan took the form of a Snake, and he..."? Of course, in later theology the association was made between the snake and Satan. But in origin, I think the snake element originally derives from a "Just So" eastern myth of "How The Snake Lost His Legs", co-opted by the Holy Spirit to teach spiritual truth.

On a different note... it seems strange that the Creationists here are merely letting those that would poke wholes in Creationism do just that without in return arguments against the obvious alternative; which is Evolution. Just an observation... and that is not to say that those arguing do not have the right, or respected opprutunity to argue their opinion.

Click to expand...

Firstly, they do, but their arguments against evolution tend to be rather easily dismissed. Secondly, they'd be better served putting forward the supporting evidence for their own model than slinging mud at the accepted one, especially since the mud seldom hits and never sticks.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

No. It screams "not literal" because of what I just said:

"The metaphorical context of Genesis 1-3 is clear. Trees with symbolic fruit. Talking snakes. God walking around as if He were a corporeal being. Humans called "man" and "mother of all". Screams "this is not literal" in letters ten feet high to my mind."

Click to expand...

Then I would assume that water turning into wine and fig trees being cursed and a man being healed with mud and spit would scream "not literal" to you also. These are not everyday ordinary occurances in eithor case. That does not mean they didn't happen. Why woud Adam be called anything but "man"? What would you have named Eve? Names with deeper meanings are found throughout the OT, names of literal people.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

Apart from what I've just pointed out. Why do you think talking snakes and trees with symbolic fruit are best taken literally?



You know that Creation is a supernatural miracle rather than brought about by natural processes how?



So - most of the time He's not needed. Gives Him some time off I suppose. Just trying to get a coherent model of fundamentalist hermeneutics.

Click to expand...

Creation is a supernatural miracle because scripture clearly states that God spoke everything into being. At no point is there an implication that He chose to use a complicated natural process requiring billions of years.

The Holy spirit is needed for us to live a Christian life. At times that intails descernment of scripture.
What is your defination of fundamentalist and why do you think I am one? Please list the denomitations you consider fundamentalist so I know who you're talking about.

Oncedeceived said:

Thank you and I most certainly will check out the books.

I am sorry, because I did generalize and I hate when people do that. I was thinking about Gould and Hawking when I said that and forgot about all the others. I stand corrected. Good job!!!

Click to expand...

You're welcome. However, did you notice the quote about science being UNABLE to discuss God was from GOULD? Gould has a lot of respect for religion and considers it an equal, but completely separate, search for truth to science. His term is Non Overlapping Magisteria.

Hawking is also not predisposed against religion. He too is an agnostic. If you want examples of scientists predisposed against theism you need Dawkins, Sagan, and EO Wilson.

Human_Clay said:

Karl is right in that much of the Creation story is symbolic... but just because it is symbolic does not mean that it didn't happen that way. There are many things in Genesis that represent mankind as a whole, and all sorts of other things too. These representations are to be recognized, and learned from, but that does not entail the disregarding of the literal part of the Creation story.

Click to expand...

The fact that Genesis 2 uses allegorical names for the man and woman screams ALLEGORY. Not literal, allegory.

The fact that Genesis 2:4b flatly contradicts the time sequence that Genesis 1 just got done telling us screams that neither story is not literal.

In trying to read the stories as literal history, you miss the whole THEOLOGICAL points of both stories. What was the theological purpose of Gensis 1? Was it REALLY to tell the how of creation? If so, why do we have plants before the sun? Or could it be that the purpose was to destroy the Babylonian pantheon by reducing it to creatures created by Yahweh? Markduk was the chief god and the god of agriculture. His YOUNGER sister was the sun goddess. So, notice that all the plants mentioned are agricultural plants, not wild ones. Herbs and fruits. Not trees or weeds. So, destroy Marduk first because he is older and then destroy the sun goddess.

You say that the talking serpent screams not to be taken literally... it seems that you're under the idea that this was purely a different snake, not satan merely taking on one of the plethora of forms at his disposal.

Click to expand...

And it is NOT satan! Do you really believe that modern snakes have the DNA of satan? That satan really HAS DNA? After all, remember that all the serpent's DESCENDENTS would crawl upon the ground? Also, is satan going to be God's betting buddy in Job if he is the one that screwed up all of humanity for God? I know God is forgiving, but PLEASE!

The idea that the serpent is satan is a man-made theory.

On a different note... it seems strange that the Creationists here are merely letting those that would poke wholes in Creationism do just that without in return arguments against the obvious alternative; which is Evolution.

Click to expand...

That is because most of the creationists here understand that science works by falsification and that, once a theory is falsified -- like creationism is -- then it's dead. Now, the reason that there is no response is that there isn't one. The falsifications are real and there is no counter. They are what got creationism falsified by Christians 130+ years ago.

pudmuddle said:

Then I would assume that water turning into wine and fig trees being cursed and a man being healed with mud and spit would scream "not literal" to you also. These are not everyday ordinary occurances in eithor case. That does not mean they didn't happen. Why woud Adam be called anything but "man"? What would you have named Eve? Names with deeper meanings are found throughout the OT, names of literal people.

Click to expand...

Why would he be called Man. How about Ismael, Noah, Methusaleh, or any of hundreds of other Hebrew names that are used for nothing BUT names. And why call Eve "Hearth"? Why not Mirrim, Esther, or even Sue. Again, a name that is a name and not a symbol. Real people have names. Allegorical people are symbols and their names reflect that.

Creation is a supernatural miracle because scripture clearly states that God spoke everything into being.

Click to expand...

Not in Genesis 2 He didn't! He "formed" man and animals from the dust. So how do you reconcile the contradiction.

At no point is there an implication that He chose to use a complicated natural process requiring billions of years.{/QUOTE]

1. There is that "Let the earth bring forth ..."

2. Why would there be? He left all His Creation to tell us He chose to use a complicated process requiring billions of years. Of course, perhaps He had no idea that some day people would make a false idol of their literal interpretation of the Bible. If He had known, He might have made a more determined effort to hold them off. Or maybe not. He seems quite willing in several places to let people deceive themselves with false teachings. Creationism is just one more.

Click to expand...

lucaspa said:

Why would he be called Man. How about Ismael, Noah, Methusaleh, or any of hundreds of other Hebrew names that are used for nothing BUT names. And why call Eve "Hearth"? Why not Mirrim, Esther, or even Sue. Again, a name that is a name and not a symbol. Real people have names. Allegorical people are symbols and their names reflect that.

Click to expand...

So Abraham was not a real man? Since his name means "father of many" I assume you believe he is an allegorical person.

lucaspa said:

Not in Genesis 2 He didn't! He "formed" man and animals from the dust. So how do you reconcile the contradiction.

At no point is there an implication that He chose to use a complicated natural process requiring billions of years.{/QUOTE]

1. There is that "Let the earth bring forth ..."

2. Why would there be? He left all His Creation to tell us He chose to use a complicated process requiring billions of years. Of course, perhaps He had no idea that some day people would make a false idol of their literal interpretation of the Bible. If He had known, He might have made a more determined effort to hold them off. Or maybe not. He seems quite willing in several places to let people deceive themselves with false teachings. Creationism is just one more.

Click to expand...

So, according to you...a man who has never been to school, never heard of evolution picks up a Bible and reads the Genesis account of creation. And believes it as written, and is decieved. Do you suppose God will let the poor bugger into heaven? After all, he should have looked around him a little more and realized that of course God didn't actually make man and animals, he just created a one celled blob of tissue and went away for a few billion years.
I have yet to anything in creation to convince me of this. I should then believe that secular scientists must have it right, because, after all, they never make mistakes?

Click to expand...