Rain and The Creation

[Micaiah]

You still seem to be confusing myth with falsehood. Was there are real 'Good Samaritan' who was left to die at the roadside by several passing jewish priests? Or was Christ using a made up story to convey a spiritual truth?

The genre of Genesis is clearly a historical account of events at the dawn of time. The characters are recognised as such throughout the Scriptures. The only reason TE's doubt the historicity of the book is because it doesn't accord with popular myths promoted by humanists on how we came to be.

 

[Eric_C]

Was there are real 'Good Samaritan' who was left to die at the roadside by several passing jewish priests? Or was Christ using a made up story to convey a spiritual truth?

No. The Samaritan was not the one who fell among thieves and was left half dead. The Samaritan was the one who came along and helped him.


Luke 10:30-37

"And Jesus answering said, A certain [man] went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded [him], and departed, leaving [him] half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked [on him], and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion [on him], And went to [him], and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave [them] to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."

You really should get your facts correct before posting, Fiji.

The difference between parables and Genesis is that the context is all that is needed to determine that Luke 10:30-35 is a parable. In Genesis the context is history and there is nothing within the text to indicate otherwise. The only way that one can get Genesis to become a myth is to impose it from an external source, ones own mind.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

 

[Andy D]

Andy D, I have disagreed with you at almost every turn on here but they have been disagreements of interpretation.

Now you are parotting nonsense you have no idea about. Just because you cut/pasted it of some whacko creationist site. That nonsense above you posted is very interesting. Because normally the paragraph cites the Boyne Observatory as making these measurements. Unfortunately for the Creationist idiots who wrote it that observatory does not exist. Now I see you have a version that actually uses the USNO & Greenwich which do exist.

The problem is I used to work at the Royal Observatory as a Post Graduate researcher. This sun shrinking rubbish is a lie. I couls provide literally dozens of references and links to show this but unfortunately such real science seems to fly way over the heads of most Creationists, as they prefer to believe the tripe written by AIG or ICR or Kent Hovind, people who know nothing, absolutely nothing, about stellar physics, astronomical techniques or physics in general.

If you truly believe this invalid nonsense then I am truly sorry that your understanding of science is so small and your faith so in need of lies to support it. This material is false and the people at the Creationist groups who still use it know it is false. They are liars for Christ, unfortunately a very common subgroup of Creationists.

My Problem is that you stating it is false is not an arguement that I can accept. How do i know that you are not saying that because the evidence you were shown and taught was biassed? How do I know that they didnt cover it up by changing their story? You are expecting me to believe man over the Bible now. I cannot do this. I give scientific evidence I have read and if it is wrong, it doesnt change my beliefs on creationism. It just means I dig deeper and hey, I dont mind if I can get into that field so I can win a nobel prize for showing flaws in the model used by astronomers. Of course it wouldnt do a thing to change people's hearts. You see, faith is hope in things which are not seen, things to come. If we were given a clear view of God through creation that proved God, proved the supernatural, then we wouldnt need faith then would we?

 

[Andy D]

The problem is I used to work at the Royal Observatory as a Post Graduate researcher. This sun shrinking rubbish is a lie. I couls provide literally dozens of references and links to show this but unfortunately such real science seems to fly way over the heads of most Creationists, as they prefer to believe the tripe written by AIG or ICR or Kent Hovind, people who know nothing, absolutely nothing, about stellar physics, astronomical techniques or physics in general.

If you truly believe this invalid nonsense then I am truly sorry that your understanding of science is so small and your faith so in need of lies to support it. This material is false and the people at the Creationist groups who still use it know it is false. They are liars for Christ, unfortunately a very common subgroup of Creationists.

I have a feeling the evidence you would present would go over the heads of the same number of TE's and OEC's because unless you actually study a certain science then how can one understand it fully? No scientist sees the full picture by studying one area of science.

By the way, I am getting used to being called a liar for Christ and whatever else for Christ. I am getting used to being group with others who have a belief that is the same, who are Christian brothers and sisters, but apparently are great for being rudely insulted on a Christian forum. I find it quite strange that you think men of God whom I know to be reputable in their faith in Christ would knowingly lie about something when there are so many discrepencies that they can just list a different one. Any mistakes made would be based on other sources being incorrect. I wont vouch for all creationists because I dont know them all obviously but I know enough of them who do research in the area who are NOT willingly lying about the information.

 

[Andy D]

So how do we understand the references in the gospels to people in the OT such as Moses, Abraham, Adam and Eve etc. The way I read it, there is no distinction between the way the authors refer to these people, and other figures of the past, or are we to understand that all people in the OT are figurative. King David was then a very prolific writer for someone who never existed.

And yet we see references to both 'groups' of people in the same genealogies. How do you assign a genre to these genealogies? How do you work out who are the legends, and who are the real guys.

I ask that and I never get a straight answer. It seems that yet again one must interpret the Bible differently....the amount of times we have to know when to read something a certain way when I have always just done what most Christians I know do, be led by the Holy Spirit in my reading. It is so confusing to be a TE. It no longer is left up to the Holy Spirit to guide us in our readings but rather we would need to keep a list of how each part is to be read. We would need additional books to help us intrepret the Bible. I believe having additional books such as greek/hebrew commentaries, etc are very beneficial but the VAST majority of Christians never had access to these and never will.

It is strange that God would create a religion for only the ones who are scientists or advanced in theology to the extent where they dont need the Holy Sprit to guide them anymore but rather accept what their 'leader' tells them or some additional book. I am not having a go at church leaders here by the way. I just dont believe we should do what a friend at work was told by her catholic school. She was told to stop asking questions about the Bible. The nuns at the school didnt have a clue about the theological side of things. That is something it appears only the priest knows..or those ordained by God or something. Christians believe that we are all priests. God gave us all the Holy Spirit to guide us and empower us as Christians. I beleive we can learn from one another but as far as just accepting things and not researching it myself MAINLY by reading God's word, that is just plain ignorance.

 

[Andy D]

But that's bseide the point as we know there are many stars whose life cycles are short compared woith the age of the universe and no hydrogen would not of been completely depleted, if you can point to a major inconsistency in the current model of stellar evoltuion I'm sure there's a Nobel prize in it.

As for the shrinking sun:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

2)This line of attack becomes even stupider when you realize that we can obsrve galaxies that are approximately 13 billion years old.

I am not 100% sure what they current model of steller evolution is so I need more information but if it involves stuff such as the expansion of the universe and rotation, etc, then there is always a possibility that our current one is wrong. I will post two links I am not sure if they have anything to do with the current model but it appears that in that area of science, scientists admit large error rates are possible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/509.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0814_cosmologies.asp

I just like to know if the information in these two articles has been commented on or refuted since they were written? Fascinating stuff, science. I can definately see why so many get into the field and are fascinated by what they discover. The possibilities are enormous. The deeper we delve, one thing is for sure, the more wonderful and awesome I see our God is.

 

[Andy D]

Also, I would like information regarding the grand canyon.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/grand_canyon.asp

This is not a technical article...just explains the ongoing arguement about it.

 

[Micaiah]

It is strange that God would create a religion for only the ones who are scientists or advanced in theology to the extent where they dont need the Holy Sprit to guide them anymore but rather accept what their 'leader' tells them or some additional book.

I really like the way God described Creation. Imagine the desciption if it was written by some of out scientific or engineering friends.

Volume 57 - "An enquiry into the phasor shift of the quantum lift generating mechanisms due to stellar fallout. Hour 0048."

 

[PotLuck]

Volume 57 - "An enquiry into the phasor shift of the quantum lift generating mechanisms due to stellar fallout. Hour 0048."

LOL!!

anyway...
Well, the intent of the thread was torpedoed and I must congratulate the captain of the U-boat for his aim. So much for baptism under fire.

OK, never heard of theistic evolution until I wandered in here.
One question since I find TEism as interesting as one finding a new flightless bird on a secluded part of some Philippine Island.

Were there TEs before Darwin?
If so then Darwin didn't have the market cornered concerning evolution and may not be entitled to the credit he's recieved.
If not then he may very well have been the first TE since he never said he totally rejected God or embraced atheism but remained an agnostic thoughout his life.

Let's see, papers presented mostly from 1844 to 1858 so that could make evolution somewhere about 150 years old or so. Can TEs follow Darwin and Jesus at the same time? If so then one can not only follow a man and Jesus but reconcile the two within a belief system.

It would then follow that the mormon argument that Jesus and Joseph Smith can be equally followed may have substance. Or is Smith the wrong fellow to follow? And why would Darwin be a better choice of men since Joseph said he saw the personages of God and Jesus while Darwin saw only fishes and apes?

Were there TEs before Darwin?
Was there mormonism before Smith? Was there a Jehovah Witness before Charles Russell? Who founded Islam? Abraham? How about Hinduism or Buddism?
Joseph Smith is still in his grave and so is Darwin along with the rest of the men of the past.
Except Jesus.

 

[gluadys]

LOL!!

anyway...
Well, the intent of the thread was torpedoed and I must congratulate the captain of the U-boat for his aim. So much for baptism under fire.

OK, never heard of theistic evolution until I wandered in here.
One question since I find TEism as interesting as one finding a new flightless bird on a secluded part of some Philippine Island.

Were there TEs before Darwin?
If so then Darwin didn't have the market cornered concerning evolution and may not be entitled to the credit he's recieved.

Actually, yes there were. Evolution was not a new idea with Darwin, but before Darwin it was basically a philosophical idea with no scientific underpinning. One of the first people to try and give it a scientific basis was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. I haven't checked into his religion, but if he was a theist, then he would be a theistic evolutionist.

Darwin's achievement was not so much coming up with the idea of evolution, but 1) describing a mechanism (descent with modification/natural selection) that would produce evolution, and 2) amassing mounds and mounds of evidence that the strict form of special creation assumed in his day was not a good explanation of the origin of many species.

Most creationists today actually agree with most of what Darwin proposed and are not aware of what "special creation" meant in the mid-19th century. I have posted a brief history of the extent to which creationism has been modified from the form it took in Darwin's time here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t736563

 

[gluadys]

[

Also, I would like information regarding the grand canyon.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/grand_canyon.asp

This is not a technical article...just explains the ongoing arguement about it.

Here is one you can start with, as it deals with the same rock formation as featured in the AIG article.

http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/cocotr.html

And here's a thread from the open Creation and Evolution board with lots more info. Frumious Bandersnatch is extremely knowledgeable on questions of geology. I've pm-ed him more than once with questions.


http://www.christianforums.com/t63670

 

[PotLuck]

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.

 

[Null-Geodesic]

][/color]I am not 100% sure what they current model of steller evolution is so I need more information but if it involves stuff such as the expansion of the universe and rotation, etc, then there is always a possibility that our current one is wrong

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.

 

[adam149]

Just some thoughts...

In school I had been taught that a mixture of substances and lightning was the catylyst of life. But if we look at the bible it did not rain in the garden. The plants were watered by a mist or vapor coming up from the earth. In fact, rain isn't even mentioned until the Flood.

It would also seem that there were no rainbows until after the Flood. God makes the rainbow as a sign of peace for the earth. If rainbows existed before the flood then how could that be a sign, something that already existed?

There were already plants and animal life before rain or lightning.

Rain is also used as the shaper of the earth by erosion taught by evolution. But yet, the bible doesn't support it. No rain, no lightning... no erosion.

According to the bible man was on the earth before it rained.

|v5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
|v6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
(OldT:Genesis 2:5-6)


|v4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
(OldT:Genesis 7:4)


|v2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
|v3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
(OldT:Genesis 8:2-3)


|v12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
|v13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
(OldT:Genesis 9:12-13)

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

 

[PotLuck]

Actually, yes there were. Evolution was not a new idea with Darwin, but before Darwin it was basically a philosophical idea with no scientific underpinning. One of the first people to try and give it a scientific basis was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. I haven't checked into his religion, but if he was a theist, then he would be a theistic evolutionist.

Darwin's achievement was not so much coming up with the idea of evolution, but 1) describing a mechanism (descent with modification/natural selection) that would produce evolution, and 2) amassing mounds and mounds of evidence that the strict form of special creation assumed in his day was not a good explanation of the origin of many species.

Most creationists today actually agree with most of what Darwin proposed and are not aware of what "special creation" meant in the mid-19th century. I have posted a brief history of the extent to which creationism has been modified from the form it took in Darwin's time here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t736563

To understand TEism I need at least a basic knowledge of how evolution works. Without it then I'd be viewing some of the books of the bible the wrong way as I've been told many times on this forum. If I choose not to believe the theory of evolution as fact or in some manner refuse to accept it then I'm still wrong about those books.

As science produces more information the TE must also update his/her views to conform with the new information presented. Science is not infallible. Some accepted "facts" today may very well be outdated or even tossed when better information is made available once again altering the views of scripture in accordance of the data presented.
It's quite possible that if one TE has more info that another TE then he/she either has something to learn or catch up so each is on the same page or remain outdated and remain out of step as to how scripture should be interpreted. It's not hard to imagine solidarity being lost in such a system.

Mormonism has basically the same mechanics to massage interpretation of the bible to comform to the changes in social tolerance, behavior or morals of the day. This they call "progressive revelation". The problem with this system is that I can talk to one mormon, talk to another and get something totally different from each depending how updated they are to the current mormon doctrine. It's not uncommon to find a member of the LDS church still believing the doctrines taught 20 years ago and out of step with a more up-to-date mormon. This even occurs when asking questions about what their doctrine is. Before even speaking of spiritual matters with a mormon you must first find out where they are in the progression of their teachings over a period of time.

If then I must understand something about evolution as a TE's views must change as time progresses then I not only make things much more complicated but I also lose solidarity, I must get updates to remain current and it becomes imperative that I keep one eye on science throughout my walk within theistic evolution.

 

[adam149]

Since when? Perhaps what you really mean to say is that myth is not fact. Different thing entirely than not being truth.

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

"Who accespts today the idea of inhereted sin? And since there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, no Fall, then what is all this talk about redemption...? In which case, what happens to the doctrine of the unique historical importance of the Incarnation and Crucifixion? The whole myth, to make any sense, must be totally reread...." (J. Campbell, Creative Mythology, Vol 4 in The Masks of God, pg. 629-630)

Alexander Eliot, another mythologist of world renoune writes

"Myths are never factual, but seldom are they totally 'untrue.' "(A. Eliot, The Universal Myths, pg. 1

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.

 

[PotLuck]

Gen 2:5-6 teaches that there was no rain before the creation of man...

Yes.
And that was the major issue I wanted to point out.

If I can not believe the bible then I may as well throw it away because it's of no use to me and my faith in Christ is unfounded based only on myths and fairy tales.

True, but it helps if you know how to read it.

Therein lies my deepest objection with TEism.
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.
A mormon will point to the bible and tell you "It's the Word of God. But before you can read it properly you must read this one first, the Book of mormon. And here's a couple more that will be very helpful... The pearl of great price and Doctrines and covenants."
A TE will point to the bible and tell you, "It's the Word of God. But before you can properly understand the very first book you must read Evolution XX edition by so-and-so".

No, the bible stands solely on it's own without support or requirement from any outside source or influence.

 

[GodSaves]

I absolutely agree 1000% PotLuck!!! You have pointed out what I think I have lacked in expressing, the Bible stands on its own without any support from outside influences.

God Bless

 

[Null-Geodesic]

I absolutely agree 1000% PotLuck!!! You have pointed out what I think I have lacked in expressing, the Bible stands on its own without any support from outside influences.

God Bless

Spiritually of course. Technically absolutely not.

 

[gluadys]

As science produces more information the TE must also update his/her views to conform with the new information presented. Science is not infallible. Some accepted "facts" today may very well be outdated or even tossed when better information is made available once again altering the views of scripture in accordance of the data presented.

It's quite possible that if one TE has more info that another TE then he/she either has something to learn or catch up so each is on the same page or remain outdated and remain out of step as to how scripture should be interpreted. It's not hard to imagine solidarity being lost in such a system.

.... It's not uncommon to find a member of the LDS church still believing the doctrines taught 20 years ago and out of step with a more up-to-date mormon. This even occurs when asking questions about what their doctrine is. Before even speaking of spiritual matters with a mormon you must first find out where they are in the progression of their teachings over a period of time.

If then I must understand something about evolution as a TE's views must change as time progresses then I not only make things much more complicated but I also lose solidarity, I must get updates to remain current and it becomes imperative that I keep one eye on science throughout my walk within theistic evolution.

As if there has ever been a time in Christianity when there was no controversy and one Christian might not give a different answer than another.

Right from the beginning, the church had to update its teachings. We see that in the book of Acts when the Council at Jerusalem decided the basis on which gentiles would be admitted to the church. They had to send out an update on the decision, which took time to go to all the churches. So for some time, some Christians were saying, yes, Gentiles could be Christian and others were saying, no--not unless they were circumcised and brought into the Mosaic covenant.

And some never accepted the Council's edict on the matter.

We see it as well in Paul's comments on the role of women in the church. Clearly his recommendations were not being followed in all churches, so there was division over what was correct.

And what about the 4-5 centuries of theological debate which led to the orthodox affirmation of the trinity and the dual nature of Christ? In those times you would certainly get a variety of opinions depending on which Christian you spoke to. In fact you still do.

And what of questions that remain open today regarding the sacraments, the permissibility of participation in war, and ----still----the role of women in the church?

I understand the point you are making. But agreement (and being up-to-date) on agreements is not absolutely necessary for solidarity.

Long ago the church set out the basis of solidarity:

Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and in all things charity.

As for keeping up-to-date on scientific information, well a little humility and readiness to be corrected helps a lot. We know that information changes, so, especially if we are not professionals, we know we are likely to be behind the times. I know I learn a lot in this forum from the professional and even well-informed amateur biologists, geologists and physicists. Never heard of proto-cells until a few weeks ago and was flabbergasted to hear that anyone who wants to can cook them up in their kitchen.

The main thing I believe, (which is why I chose the signature I did) is that no knowledge, from any source whatsoever, can ever be truly anti-thetical to the bedrock of Christian faith. It may shake up our beliefs about history and scripture and inspiration, but it cannot shake the foundation of our beliefs about creation, redemption, and eternal life in the kingdom now and to come. Nor can it ever separate us from the love of God made known to us in Christ.