Rain and The Creation

[gluadys]

There have always been issues but citing that to rationalize the introduction of yet another form of diversity only leads to compounding the problems not fixing them.

But it is not a rationalization. The simple existence of the theory of evolution--impacting as it does on our understanding of creation--requires thoughtful Christians to evaluate it, both scientifically and theologically. It is not a discussion which can be avoided. Though we can and should try to avoid contentiousness and disrespect.

When it gets to the point that some outside influence is telling me I'm reading scripture the wrong way, that because I don't believe the theory of evolution as fact as some do and that I'm wrong in my interpretation of the bible because of it then I'm going to question that influence.

And why would you not, in simple humility, consider that perhaps your interpretation IS wrong?

Clearly, if evolution IS fact, (and I have seen enough evidence to be convinced that it is), then an interpretation of scripture that will not admit it MUST be wrong.

Now, if you are not convinced that evolution is fact, then it is a matter of
1) learning more about it and becoming convinced, or
2) providing scientific evidence that it is not fact.

If you get to the point that you cannot dispute the scientific truth of evolution, but still consider it to be contrary to scripture, then you have put yourself in a position where one truth must be sacrified to the other. You must either reject science or reject scripture.


For me, that last alternative is completely unacceptable. I do not believe God so made the world that truth denies truth. Truth is indivisible and comprehensive and includes both the truths of science and the truths of scripture.

 

[PotLuck]

Herev,

Do you believe Adam was alone as God indicates to us that he was?

 

[herev]

Herev,

Do you believe Adam was alone as God indicates to us that he was?

I sincerely doubt it, and I think it is open to interpretation as to whether or not God indicated that, but, believe--???

 

[PotLuck]

It's scripture.
And you have the choice to believe scripture or no.
And that's what it boils down to.


It's hard to misinterpret ...

|v18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
(OldT:Genesis 2:18)

 

[herev]

It's scripture.
And you have the choice to believe scripture or no.
And that's what it boils down to.


It's hard to misinterpret ...

|v18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
(OldT:Genesis 2:18)

And yet you argue in circles--I have admitted freely for all the world to see with no shame that I do not think Genesis 1 and 2--the creation accounts--are to be taken literally or factually, so what point are you trying to make--that I interpret it differently than you--well, OK
Here I sit--guilty

Does that help?

 

[gluadys]

God shows there was a time when woman was not on earth as yet. That Adam was alone.
Why would God make it nessesary for man to know that Adam was alone for a while? There had to be a purpose for God telling us that. If Adam were not alone God would not have said that in the first place.
God doesn't give unnecessary information. So why does God give us information that Adam was alone for a period of time? If adam was never alone, either literally or allegorically, then god lied to us.

This so frustrates me. This is why I cannot abide literalistic interpretations. I am a teacher of literature, and these stories are wonderful literature. And debating them as if they were fact just sweeps that under the rug.

Why is Adam alone for a time? Isn't it obvious from the story itself? So that God could observe (and teach us) that "it is not good for the man to be alone". And so God is motivated to create the animals!!!!!!

You know, it fits a pattern. In this story, all of us were created because God needed a gardener.

He wanted to plant a garden, but he didn't have a gardener to till the ground.

So he makes a man to tend the garden, and God plants the garden and God is happy.

But the man is not. The man is alone. God sees it is not good for the man to be alone. So to keep his gardener happy, God decides to create some companions for him.

So the animals are created.

But none of them are satisfactory companions.

So woman is created.

Now the gardener is happy, and so God is happy.

I'm sorry if that sounds irreverent to some people. But that is what A PLAIN READING of the story says.

Why do people insist on making a story which a 5-year-old can follow so difficult?

 

[herev]

It's scripture.
And you have the choice to believe scripture or no.
And that's what it boils down to.

And you fail to realize that I do believe scripture--every word, I just interpret it differently than you in 2 chapters, soo
???

 

[PotLuck]

Whether that verse is factual or a myth it still indicates woman hadn't yet come upon the scene while Adam was there.
You can choose to believe it or not and nobody is going to judge you as being guilty or not. That's between you and the Lord.

 

[herev]

This so frustrates me. This is why I cannot abide literalistic interpretations. I am a teacher of literature, and these stories are wonderful literature. And debating them as if they were fact just sweeps that under the rug.

Why is Adam alone for a time? Isn't it obvious from the story itself? So that God could observe (and teach us) that "it is not good for the man to be alone". And so God is motivated to create the animals!!!!!!

You know, it fits a pattern. In this story, all of us were created because God needed a gardener.

He wanted to plant a garden, but he didn't have a gardener to till the ground.

So he makes a man to tend the garden, and God plants the garden and God is happy.

But the man is not. The man is alone. God sees it is not good for the man to be alone. So to keep his gardener happy, God decides to create some companions for him.

So the animals are created.

But none of them are satisfactory companions.

So woman is created.

Now the gardener is happy, and so God is happy.

I'm sorry if that sounds irreverent to some people. But that is what A PLAIN READING of the story says.

Why do people insist on making a story which a 5-year-old can follow so difficult?

My Old Testament professor (and OT exegesis, and Hebrew, and OT sexuality) sees this as an explanation that came with the Levitical law codes on sexuality. Man was alone (sexually)--not good, you'll go blind . then Man looked at the animals--not good--we'll execute you for that, so he created woman--now that's good!

 

[herev]

Whether that verse is factual or a myth it still indicates woman hadn't yet come upon the scene while Adam was there.
You can choose to believe it or not and nobody is going to judge you as being guilty or not. That's between you and the Lord.

but you keep wanting me to look at the verse, I look at the overall story--why is that difficult to understand?

If you want an explanation of the verse itself--and some truth that can come from it, look at Gluadys' post or my OT Professor's idea both above

 

[gluadys]

Whether that verse is factual or a myth it still indicates woman hadn't yet come upon the scene while Adam was there.
You can choose to believe it or not and nobody is going to judge you as being guilty or not. That's between you and the Lord.

AS a myth it indicates nothing at all about history. That is the point. A myth is not historical. The people are not historical. The events are not historical

There is a perfectly good literary reason for the man to be alone (see above), but that does not mean there ever was an historical man who was literally alone.

And there are good theological reasons for the man to be alone. That still does not mean there was an historical man who was literally alone.

 

[herev]

Whether that verse is factual or a myth it still indicates woman hadn't yet come upon the scene while Adam was there.
You can choose to believe it or not and nobody is going to judge you as being guilty or not. That's between you and the Lord.

and if I don't believe the overall story that contains that verse is factual, why is it so important for you to continue to ask if I believe that the individual verse within is factual? I'm confused

 

[PotLuck]

Whatever you want to do.
None-the-less I'll pray for you.

 

[herev]

Whatever you want to do.
None-the-less I'll pray for you.

OOOOOOKKKKKKaaaay, you too

 

[PotLuck]

AS a myth it indicates nothing at all about history. That is the point. A myth is not historical. The people are not historical. The events are not historical

There is a perfectly good literary reason for the man to be alone (see above), but that does not mean there ever was an historical man who was literally alone.

And there are good theological reasons for the man to be alone. That still does not mean there was an historical man who was literally alone.

Then Paul needs to be informed not to make his statements look so factual or at least clarify where he's coming from. People could get the wrong idea.


|v13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
(NewT:1 Timothy 2:13)

 

[GodSaves]

I guess, those that are theistic evolutionists(and believe in no Adam), read all the verses that refer to Adam or Eve as allegorical. They don't believe Adam existed, it doesn't fit with evolution. It sure makes it look like the teaching of evolution is more important then the scriptures.

 

[herev]

I guess, those that are theistic evolutionists(and believe in no Adam), read all the verses that refer to Adam or Eve as allegorical. They don't believe Adam existed, it doesn't fit with evolution. It sure makes it look like the teaching of evolution is more important then the scriptures.

Will you never cease in bearing false witness against your Christian Brothers and Sisters?

 

[PotLuck]

I guess, those that are theistic evolutionists(and believe in no Adam), read all the verses that refer to Adam or Eve as allegorical. They don't believe Adam existed, it doesn't fit with evolution. It sure makes it look like the teaching of evolution is more important then the scriptures.

It's all about motivation. Defend evolution or The Word.

But, When I see Paul I'll tell him where his error was. I'm sure he'll be quite interested to hear about it.

 

[herev]

It's all about motivation. Defend evolution or The Word.

Hello Potluck, wrong!!!
I do not defend evolution. I defend my belief in Theistic evolution as valid--that's it. I have been told too many times on this forum that because I am a TE, that I have a lessor faith, an inferior view of God or the Bible, or that I am Satan's tool. I care not to defend evolution to you or anyone else. I am glad for your belief as a creationist, but allow me the same dignity--that is ALL I defend.

 

[PotLuck]

would you have said that in Paul's day?