Rain and The Creation

[gluadys]

Only Joseph Campbell, the world's most renouned myth expert.

Alexander Eliot, another mythologist of world renoune writes

Eliot then tries to make myths true by claiming that they universally appeal to the human spirit and that is their truth, which is really no truth at all.

So both agree that myth is not fact, and Eliot at least agrees that myth can be true. I have an unread copy of Campbell's book around the house waiting for me to have time to read it.

I certainly agree the mythological nature of the Garden of Eden, the Fall etc. requires a re-reading of everything connected to it. But until I have read his work, I am not sure I agree with including the Incarnation and Crucifixion in that.

Sin is a fact. We know that from empirical observation. The story of where and how it originated may be a myth, but that doesn't obviate the fact of sin and the need for redemption. So I still see a definite need for the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[herev]

Myth - A fictitious story, person, or thing.
Fictitious - Adopted or assumed in order to deceive.

Myth isn't truth. Something not true is false, a lie.

forgive me if someone else has posted this--I haven't read through all of it, but his had to be said.
From Miriam WEbster's online dictionary
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : [size=-1]PARABLE[/size], [size=-1]ALLEGORY[/size]
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

source:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=myth&x=0&y=0

 

[herev]

Now many will state that there is much scientific evidence that proves a global flood ever occured and that creationism is a lie. I however see much scientific evidence to state otherwise. Also, it lines up perfectly with the Bible and whilst it still requires some theories as we cant know everything yet, it makes sense.

If you look at our solar system you can see evidence of a young earth, if you look at our planets, moons, stars, you will see the evidence. I give you some stuff to start chewing on. I am getting some information from a Christian author named Keith Piper who has a book called Answers. He cites his sources in many cases, but either way it shouldnt be hard for any TE's to refute the information if you desire to try.

We have many large stars in our universe that are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They couldnt have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years as their initial mass would have been too big. These O and B class stars and P Cygni stars could not continue atomic fusion longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.

Hydrogen in stars is continually turned into helium and hydrogen cannot be made from any other elements. Fred Hoyle states that if the universe was as old as big bang theorists think then there would be little hydrogen left as it would all be converted to helium by now. Spectra from stars reveal abundant hydrogen in stars.

Since 1836, over 100 different observatories at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun's diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet for hour. At this rate 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil the earth's oceans making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.

I can give HEAPS more...so just deal with this to start with. Maybe all these observatories who are experts in the field were incorrect in their calculations, mathematical calculation which are a more exact science than other fields that go by theories.

While the Big Bang Theory is different from the Theory of Evolution, still, one must wonder what creationist think of stars that are more than 6000 light years away. When did the light leave the orignating star? if it was more than 600 years ago, case closed. If it was less than 6000 years ago, how exactly are we seeing the light now?

 

[gluadys]

The bible must stand on it's own, unconditionally, as it was intended without support from education, philosophies, degrees, other gospels or another testament of Jesus Christ.

I do think the bible stands on its own very well when it comes to its intended purpose. Anyone can read the bible, especially the New Testament, and know that God loves them, that Christ died for them, and that they can be freed from sin and made alive in Christ for eternity.

OTOH, learning about history and theology allows for a more in-depth understanding of scripture. Not an understanding that is essential to salvation, but one that permits moving from a spiritual diet of milk for babes to a spiritual diet of meat for adults.

And the bible is no help at all when it comes to learning about auto mechanics or information technology. That we must learn from extra-biblical sources.

Where does science fit in this scenario? Somewhere between theology and auto mechanics I think. There is much science has discovered that is simply not addressed in the bible at all. The only way we can learn it is to turn to scientific literature. In this way it is like auto mechanics. Essential for some things, but not important to matters of faith and salvation.

But sometimes scientific discoveries impact on theology, because they tell us there are things we have taken for granted which we can no longer take for granted anymore. We discover that certain mildews are natural life forms, not related to leprosy, and we learn how to manage them as pests instead of calling in a priest to cleanse the house. (Leviticus 14: 34-57)

We learn to treat diseases such as leprosy, epilepsy, depression and schizophrenia medically instead of with exorcisms.

We explain rain and drought through meteorology instead of as manifestations of the special favour or wrath of God. We learn that Jesus was right when he said God does not show special favour in these matters, but sends rain and sun to the wicked and the good, the just and the unjust without distinction.

We learn through geology that the flood could not possibly be a global event, and we must re-read the story of Noah. Re-read, not discard. For God gave us this story, we believe, for a reason, for our instruction in the faith. So we seek out why this story is important spiritually.

And so we get to evolution. It is as wrenching a change in what we had taken for granted as the discovery that the earth did not stand still at the centre of the universe. It's hard to take. We want to deny the evidence, but it won't go away. So we need to re-think and re-read again. Most Christians have already done so. Less than 25 years after the publication of Origin of Species the Church of England formally accepted evolution as the secondary means of the creation of species. A year or so ago, the Catholic Church followed suit.

Do you think that because I subscribe to the validity of the theory of evolution that I skipped the stories of Adam and Eve or of Noah when I taught my children? Not at all. They are and remain an important part of scripture. Do you think the churches which support a theistic acceptance of evolution do not teach about creation or omit Genesis 1 from the reading of scripture or from sermons on creation? Not at all. They still have, and ought always to have, a central role in Christian teaching.

And I do agree that in terms of the essentials of the Christian faith, the bible does magnificently stand on its own without need of any outside support save the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Andy D]

Interesting.
I would suppose as time passes more information on these various subjects would shed further light on the way we view and/or teach the bible. What we know today could very well be superceded by better information as our technology increases.

For many, yes. The information I see though is purely scientific and therefore cannot overide my view of the Bible and wont change how I interpret it. It just gives me more knowledge as to what people do believe so that rather than arguing points that have already been argued scientifically, I can look at other areas.

As far as the Bible is concerned, I am also studying that deeper to understand more of the real meaning and translation of Genesis, etc. It is taking a lot of time though as the Bible is such a complex book, yet explained so simply. Amazing book it is. I still believe fully that Genesis was meant to be read literally in the creation account though. No scientific evidence that could be bias or interpreted incorrectly is going to change my view on the Bible. The only way someone is going to be able to try and do that is by quoting the Bible and giving accurate information such as in the area of linguistics and history, etc to back it up. I have never seen any evidence of this other than provided by those who support the gap theory and it also has many flaws. I also dont agree with the translation that is being used. I cant argue though until I study it.

I will always beleive that the original written text of God's word was infallible and completely inspired by God. I believe the only errors in our current translation are copying errors or translation errors, etc. Other than that it is still truth and accurate. It is very accurate considering how long it has been around. God does preserve His word. I dont believe we can just choose which parts of the Bible are truth or acceptable and which dont based on our version of Christianity that best suits our lives.

I am just a 'fundie' or 'Baptist' who wants to listen to the othse side whilst being careful to not be persuaded to cross over to something that I still believe is a lie. I just dont believe that I can debate something on a forum if I dont also listen to their side. Then I will know more about the people who I am debating with.

But I do understand your point and it is one that is VERY VALID. The Bible is fast becoming obsolete even within the ring of Christianity and it is scary. But then we do know we are living in the end times most likely and Jesus is coming soon. Maybe we are in the 'lukewarm' era of the church age as I would expect before Christ's return. We are the church who are neither hot nor cold. There are some hot and many cold but overall, we seem to love to live off the many blessings God gives to us these days and compromise with the world as much as possible so as not to cause a stir or get out of our comfort zones.

 

[Andy D]

Why on Earth would stellar evolutionary models rely on the expansion of the Universe. What the heck do you mean by rotation here?

Andy D you accused me of insulting you in an earlier post, it is not an insult to point out you are without a clue on science topics. You are insulting yourself, for others to witness, when you make posts like this. I mean no insult, I am trying to prevent you making a fool of yourself.
[/size][/color][/font]

I think when people on this forum bag out fundies, YEC's and baptists all the time as being stupid, that is an insult considering you of all people would know that there would be some VERY intelligent people within this group according to the law of averages wouldnt there?

I am asking you the questions because I am the 'dumb' YEC who only understands the Bible as that is what God leads me to do. I dont understand science as much because as most of us YEC's state, we dont put our faith in science. We know already that regardless of evidence that would prove evolution to be full of holes, evolutionists wil work around the clock to re-interpret data that they initially interpreted that caused many flaws in the evolutioniary theory. Weird how they always interpret incorrectly so many times and then re-interpret to match evolution. Ok, this means either evolution is true as our origin, or they interpreted the data again to make it match evolution. Unless evolutionary theory is perfect and it isnt ever going to be because how can life evolve perfectly without any mistakes? We make mistakes all the time. Only God doesnt make mistakes. When you start to look at astronomy then you would realise that whatever arguments that honvind makes or another creationist, the evolutionist will find an argument to refute it. Even if it also is based upon a theory that may be no more correct than hovinds'. Measuring things in space becomes a thing that even our best mathematicians are not able to be sure of because we dont know all the factors. As they say in Star trek, 'space, the final frontier' hehe.

 

[Andy D]

Gen 2:5-6 teaches that there was no rain before the creation of man, and even then it does not state that the misting was continuing or occured more than once. The Bible does not speak of rain nor mist any time afterwards until the flood. This does not rule out rain before the flood, so we must really be careful about making such claims dogmatically. It's an extremely weak argument from absolute silence.

Related is the rainbow issue. The fact that the rainbow is first mentioned after the flood does not mean that was its first appearance, in fact, it must have appeared in the garden before the flood. Rainbows are caused by light being split into its colors by water droplets in the air, which occures during misting processes as well; you can create a rainbow with a spray hose or spray bottle outside on a sunny day. Besides which, God is always investing new meaning in existing things, such as the bread and wine during the last supper, etc.

It also appears on AiG's inadvisable arguments list:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

But that didnt take anyone reading AIG to work out that a mist would still produce a rainbow if in the sunlight. But that argument of there being rain cannot be used prior to the flood either because it is also speculative. Considering the rainbow was given as a sign, it makes logical sense that there was no rainbow prior to the flood. Is it possible for the mist to have come at night time and therefore not had sunlight shine through it?

 

[Null-Geodesic]

I think when people on this forum bag out fundies, YEC's and baptists all the time as being stupid, that is an insult considering you of all people would know that there would be some VERY intelligent people within this group according to the law of averages wouldnt there?

I am asking you the questions because I am the 'dumb' YEC who only understands the Bible as that is what God leads me to do. I dont understand science as much because as most of us YEC's state, we dont put our faith in science. We know already that regardless of evidence that would prove evolution to be full of holes, evolutionists wil work around the clock to re-interpret data that they initially interpreted that caused many flaws in the evolutioniary theory. Weird how they always interpret incorrectly so many times and then re-interpret to match evolution. Ok, this means either evolution is true as our origin, or they interpreted the data again to make it match evolution. Unless evolutionary theory is perfect and it isnt ever going to be because how can life evolve perfectly without any mistakes? We make mistakes all the time. Only God doesnt make mistakes. When you start to look at astronomy then you would realise that whatever arguments that honvind makes or another creationist, the evolutionist will find an argument to refute it. Even if it also is based upon a theory that may be no more correct than hovinds'. Measuring things in space becomes a thing that even our best mathematicians are not able to be sure of because we dont know all the factors. As they say in Star trek, 'space, the final frontier' hehe.

I'm sorry but you're just another conspiracy theorist nut. You admit you don't understand what you are arguing against (and that's a honourable stance is it not?) but that doesn't stop you. In any other walk of life thats considered stupidity.

Funny how I am sure you accept 'science' when it comes to NMR scanners in hospitals, semiconductor physics for electronics etc etc etc yet you don't understand those either.

The fact that many scientists are Christian also does not deter the conspiracy slur. Shame on you.

 

[Andy D]

So both agree that myth is not fact, and Eliot at least agrees that myth can be true. I have an unread copy of Campbell's book around the house waiting for me to have time to read it.

I certainly agree the mythological nature of the Garden of Eden, the Fall etc. requires a re-reading of everything connected to it. But until I have read his work, I am not sure I agree with including the Incarnation and Crucifixion in that.

Sin is a fact. We know that from empirical observation. The story of where and how it originated may be a myth, but that doesn't obviate the fact of sin and the need for redemption. So I still see a definite need for the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Actually, sin is a fact only because of how we view things. We realise we have sinned and have a need to be saved. But if you dont believe in God, if there was no God, (A great argument to use against athiests) then there is no standard on morals or anything. Who says something is sin? We know that sin is breaking the law but for those who dont believe in the law, they dont believe in sin. Sin is rebellion against God and the standards He has set for us. If we dont beleive in God or dont care if He exists or not, how can we beleive in sin?

As you can see, sin could also be a myth in the eyes of some and who are you to tell them it isnt just a myth? You must use the authority of the Word of God. I am trying to do that with Genesis but being told it is the incorrect interpretation. How do you know that we havent all got the interpretation of the incarnation and crucifixtion wrong? It all goes down to faith in the end, faith in things that not seen.

 

[herev]

OK, I've waded through the 9 pages of this thread, and I would like to offer a few observations and opinioins, please bear with me
1. While Null-Geodesic and I agree on the basics of Theistic evolution, we do not agree on the belief in creationism as nonsense or stupid or any of the other insults that have been waved around. While I valueeveryone's opinion, I think it useless and unChristian to demean each other's values and beliefs. We all beleive in Christ Jesus, let's be nice
2. On the other hand, it is interesting to watch the creationists reactions to the insults. They continually say things about us TE's not being able to see what is PLAINLY written, our "lack of faith," our putting "faith in men over God," and our general slip towards hell. With those, they don't see that we are insulted, though we tell them that all the time--in those cases, it seems the insults are ok, so why the difference?
3. Andy D has been gracious in his posts before and I have respect for him. I pray that he will not be pushed into joining in the insult game.

4. My main concern continues to be this--can we not all agree that we INTERPRET scripture differently, ask questions of others and present arguments for our own beliefs without determining that the other is stupid, demonic, or faithless?
We TE's do not think the Bible is simply a book of lies, nor do we give glory to any MAN. Creationists can say it a million times, but since we have decidedly told you that is not so--to continue to say so is bearing false witness against a Christian brother or sister.
Creationists are not "blindly" ignoring facts, they simply believe that the Bible should be taken over and above any facts that, to them, contradict Scripture--no matter how many times people say that about them does not make it so--especially since they have told us this over and over again. To continue to say this about them is bearing false witness against a Chrstian brother or sister.

and the'll know we are Christians by our love--by our love--yes, they'll know we are Christians by our love.....

 

[Andy D]

While the Big Bang Theory is different from the Theory of Evolution, still, one must wonder what creationist think of stars that are more than 6000 light years away. When did the light leave the orignating star? if it was more than 600 years ago, case closed. If it was less than 6000 years ago, how exactly are we seeing the light now?

As a Christian, I have never had a problem with this because if God desired for all the stars to shine from the beginning and if that was 6000 years ago then why couldnt he create stars and make their light already be reaching earth? God is not bound by our science or laws.

 

[herev]

As a Christian, I have never had a problem with this because if God desired for all the stars to shine from the beginning and if that was 6000 years ago then why couldnt he create stars and make their light already be reaching earth? God is not bound by our science or laws.

Interesting...thanks

 

[Null-Geodesic]

Note to all:

I intend no personal insult here but I am sick to death of fundamental Creationists slurring what I do for a living and either implying I am part of some conspiracy or I and my colleagues are liars.

Yet this comes from people who admit they don't know what they are talking about and probably never got beyond high school math.

In other words shut up about science when you cannot follow it seemingly. And quit saying we scientists are liars.

 

[Null-Geodesic]

As a Christian, I have never had a problem with this because if God desired for all the stars to shine from the beginning and if that was 6000 years ago then why couldnt he create stars and make their light already be reaching earth? God is not bound by our science or laws.

Because it makes God the creator of a false history. i.e. God lies. Maybe your God does, mine does not.

 

[Andy D]

And the bible is no help at all when it comes to learning about auto mechanics or information technology. That we must learn from extra-biblical sources.

Where does science fit in this scenario? Somewhere between theology and auto mechanics I think. There is much science has discovered that is simply not addressed in the bible at all. The only way we can learn it is to turn to scientific literature. In this way it is like auto mechanics. Essential for some things, but not important to matters of faith and salvation.

Problem is, Info tech and auto mechanics have never been fields that have challenged my interpretation of the Bible so evolution is a totally different thing. Science that measures the weather forecasts and lovely interesting facts about our earth, fine. Just where it directly challenges what I believe the Bible says is when I have a problem with science.

We learn through geology that the flood could not possibly be a global event, and we must re-read the story of Noah. Re-read, not discard. For God gave us this story, we believe, for a reason, for our instruction in the faith. So we seek out why this story is important spiritually.

But then a different person learns through geology that the flood in fact could have occured and been global. I learn from reading the Bible that it was a global flood and that when you translate it correctly, the story is referring to a global flood. Unless it is read allogorically which doesnt make sense because I then have to read genealogies that have some ficticious people in the lists. Also the argument that Genesis 1 is poetry and meant to be read that way is one that I believe is made up to fit in with evolutionary theory because i cannot see how it was meant to be read that way. I see sooo many VERY good biblical points from theologians that point to it being an actual account.

And so we get to evolution. It is as wrenching a change in what we had taken for granted as the discovery that the earth did not stand still at the centre of the universe. It's hard to take. We want to deny the evidence, but it won't go away. So we need to re-think and re-read again. Most Christians have already done so. Less than 25 years after the publication of Origin of Species the Church of England formally accepted evolution as the secondary means of the creation of species. A year or so ago, the Catholic Church followed suit.

By stating that churches such as Church of England (my Nana was from that church) and the Catholic church took on the belief I am more likely to reject the theory. I dont follow suit because the 'world' churches say so. I believe Jesus is the authority and His word, NOT the bishop of canterbury or the pope. I am not going to follow suit with organisations that disagree with MANY doctrines I believe to be 100% Biblical. I dont believe we should make the Bible fit our theology. How can I look to churches that follow works rather than grace, for answers?

 

[Null-Geodesic]

But then a different person learns through geology that the flood in fact could have occured and been global.

Try finding one who is not a paid shill for AIG or ICR.

Problem is, Info tech and auto mechanics have never been fields that have challenged my interpretation of the Bible so evolution is a totally different thing. Science that measures the weather forecasts and lovely interesting facts about our earth, fine. Just where it directly challenges what I believe the Bible says is when I have a problem with science.

Might this be dogmatic of you. Again I tender that you have not the capability of discerning goo science from bad science. I also tender that there are facets ot the sciences you do accept that directly contradict Scripture, but since no one has pointed this out to you you're fine with it. What a position to take.

 

[Andy D]

I'm sorry but you're just another conspiracy theorist nut. You admit you don't understand what you are arguing against (and that's a honourable stance is it not?) but that doesn't stop you. In any other walk of life thats considered stupidity.

Funny how I am sure you accept 'science' when it comes to NMR scanners in hospitals, semiconductor physics for electronics etc etc etc yet you don't understand those either.

The fact that many scientists are Christian also does not deter the conspiracy slur. Shame on you.

Do you call the Bible a conspiracy theory? I certainly cant change your mind on that one but I happen to believe the Bible to be the Word of God.

I admit I dont understand all we are arguing just as you and all others should because not one of us knows enough about even the original data that continues to be refuted by evolutionists when interpreted by them incorrectly in the first place and then creationists jump all over the information crying see, young earth. Accept that I am just here to learn and if you like to debate, YEC's like to debate on a Biblical level firstmost and foremost. We are unable to to this because of a lack of understanding of this part of the Bible by most TE's on here. I am sorry but I prefer to be ignorant of science then the Bible.

I accept science as a matter of life and death when it comes to medical needs, yes, I accept science in my job when it comes to computers, yes, why? Not one person on earth can live without accepting science because we are all made of chemicals and this whole world is anaylsed using science. That doesnt mean that scientists have it right though in interpreting the data. Why do you choose to believe that Scientists are interpreting the data more correctly that we are interpreting the Bible? They are on their own, no spiritual guidance, we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit and yet we are still wrong?????????

I dont see why shame on me for there being Christian scientists. They are allowed to be scientists as much as you can be a farmer.

 

[adam149]

But that didnt take anyone reading AIG to work out that a mist would still produce a rainbow if in the sunlight. But that argument of there being rain cannot be used prior to the flood either because it is also speculative.

That's exactly the point. If the Bible does not say "there was no rain before the flood" and also does not say "there was definately rain before the flood" then the Bible does not speak of rain between the creation of man on day 6 and the flood. Thus neither argument can be used. I wasn't arguing that there was definately rain, I was merely pointing out the fact that the Bible does not affirm or deny ether position, thus there is no evidence at all for either and we should not be dogmatic because we simply do not know.

Considering the rainbow was given as a sign, it makes logical sense that there was no rainbow prior to the flood.

No it doesn't, because 1) God's creative act was finished by the literal day six and does not continue, thus the act of light being split into the color spectrum through water droplets in the air would already have been completed, 2) God often infuses things with new meanings after their creation, and as I already pointed out, the bread and wine of communion is one example. Were we to use your logic, because the cross Christ was crucified on was the first cross mentioned, this clearly indicates that no crosses existed prior to its mention. Simply because the Bible mentions something at a certain point for the first time does not mean that's when it was created. That's the whole point - we simply have no place for saying "rainbows did not exist before the flood." We don't have a place to say "rainbows absolutely existed before the flood" either. There is no place for dogmatism on this.

Is it possible for the mist to have come at night time and therefore not had sunlight shine through it?

Sola Scriptura. If you can show me where the Bible states that, I'll believe it. Outside of that, it's merely a "just so" story.

I'm not arguing that their was rain or rainbows before the flood. I'm arguing that we cannot be dogmatic since the scriptural teaching is very vauge on this point.

 

[Andy D]

Note to all:

I intend no personal insult here but I am sick to death of fundamental Creationists slurring what I do for a living and either implying I am part of some conspiracy or I and my colleagues are liars.

Yet this comes from people who admit they don't know what they are talking about and probably never got beyond high school math.

In other words shut up about science when you cannot follow it seemingly. And quit saying we scientists are liars.

Who says all scientists are lying? People in all professions lie. I dont have a problem with science and I dont think any YEC's here do. We just put forth scientific evidence that we were given and get insulted because of it. Why do you think we dont want to bring scientifi evidence along? Because we are knocked down by a force of words so insulting. I dont mean to insult you but you are stating an argument about being dumb and not getting beyond high school maths that is just as true if not more true about those who believe in evolution considering the law of averages. I have asked some who would beleive in evolution about what they believe and most non-believers could care less about how we got here. At least creationists are showing some interest in what you do arent they? Most people on this earth couldnt care less if we came from another planet, aliens, apes or created in a day. Even many Christians probably couldnt care less....either because they cant be bothered studying it or havent gone that far in their studies yet to have had to make up their mind.

I have nearly completed a degree in financial planning so I do happen to have a level of maths much higher than high school. I have had to study statistics, etc. Maybe you can make that your next science research project, how many evolutionists have passed high school maths compared to YEC's. Then you might like to see how many people on this planet who accept evolution, know more about it or as much as many YEC's.

 

[Andy D]

Because it makes God the creator of a false history. i.e. God lies. Maybe your God does, mine does not.

Please tell me why this makes God the creator of false history? What do you mean?