Shouldn't Creationism be taught at public schools?

[trophy33]

The Bible is not mythological narrative. And the details in Genesis - Deuteronomy provides great historical detail.

Bible is a library of various writings, including mythological narratives or mythological themes.

Writings written in a mythological prevalence era can provide details, I would not call it "great detail" or "historical detail", though. Its mostly a mixture of myths and some realities.

 

[trophy33]

I ask you the same question.

Why would you have such a strong opinion that it was not Moses? Many scripture refer to Moses as the author and Moses even refers to himself in the first person in Deu. So why such a strong opinion against Moses without having a clear alternative? Sounds like you have a motive behind your statement. Can you expose yourself to us?

You ask in quite a weird way - expose myself to you? Just educate yourself about Genesis, you can start with wikipedia, Bible dictionaries or attend some Bible seminary. Even in a high school, you should learn the same info, in the literature subject.

What I said about Genesis and about its authorship or timing is not some secret, unknown teaching, its the mainstream, public, scholarly consensus you can find in many places if you are willing to learn about it.

 

[David Lamb]

So what is the importance of claiming Moses as the author?

The importance is that Jesus believed Moses wrote some of the Old Testament Scriptures.

 

[David Lamb]

We are not called to believe in Genesis. That would be quite a different religion than Christianity.

I think Genesis is a part of the Mosaic Law, written in the style that was common for religious and national writings in the era. Inspiration does not mean it was dictated by God word for word (which is provable easily) or that it must be written in our modern way of thinking.

Not called to believe Genesis? Is Genesis not part of the "all Scripture" mentioned by Paul to Timothy?

“All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” (2Ti 3:16 NKJV)

 

[Doug Brents]

I would say that this is precisely why Genesis 1:1 does in fact describe an ex materia creation. Because that is what the oldest of manuscripts and texts describe, such as those of the dead sea scrolls and of extra biblical texts that parallel Genesis, such as the Memphite Theology of ancient Egypt, which is where the Israelites traditionally are suggested to have escaped out of.

I don't think you're really practicing what you're preaching here.

This is why creationism never really took hold among the scientific community, but it's also why creationism is a minority view among biblical scholars.

Anyone who spends any time looking into the Egyptian and Babylonian context of Genesis, quite plainly can see that it is of origins that really have nothing to do with "evolution vs creation" as we think of the subject today.

ROTFL You have me completely rolling here. Your source is pagan Egyptian and Babylonian whatever, and then secondary to that is the Bible? Wow!
I'm sorry, but that is exactly backwards from how it should be. The Bible is our first, last, and only reliable resource.

It really doesn't discourage me at all that the truth didn't take hold in the scientific community, or that creationism is a minority view. The truth has always been the minority view. What disturbs me is that people who disbelieve in Creation claim to be Christ followers. Their taking His name in vain upsets me as much as it upsets Him.

 

[Doug Brents]

That is an inference we are free to make or decline. Do you also want to teach 6 day creation?

There is no inference in my statement. Evolutionism is debunked by evolutionist's own theories and "laws". Yes, there is evidence of adaptation within a species to a new or changing environment, but one species does not change into another species, let alone into a different genus, or family, or order, class, phylum, or kingdom. God made every living creature to reproduce according to its kind. Its kind does not change no matter how many generations you go through.

Why is one author's writing "God breathed" but another author not?

The New Testament writings were understood to be Scripture from the time of their writing (2 Pet 3:14-16). And Paul acknowledges Luke's Gospel to be Scripture (1 Tim 5:18). And there are others as well. As for the Old Testament writings being Scripture, the Law (the first five books of the Bible), the Prophets (the books of the prophets) and the Writings (the books of poetry (Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, etc.) were accounted as Scripture for many hundreds of years before Jesus came. And He accounts them to be Scripture (Matt 5:17, Luke 24:44). Man does not make these writings God breathed. God inspires them, and we acknowledge His work.

 

[Job 33:6]

ROTFL You have me completely rolling here. Your source is pagan Egyptian and Babylonian whatever, and then secondary to that is the Bible? Wow!
I'm sorry, but that is exactly backwards from how it should be. The Bible is our first, last, and only reliable resource.

No. Just read the Bible itself. The scriptures are the original source. But, as noted, literature of the wider ancient near east and other texts among the dead sea scrolls verify it. These texts are describing things like an ex materia creation.

And not only that, but we have countless historical records of Jewish rabbis and Christian early church fathers that further verify this historical view.

If you feel that tradition is important, this is it, you're looking right at it and rejecting it.

And coming up with smart responses like "your source is pagan Egypt" is nothing more than a half-baked straw man. Because extra biblical texts are just icing on the cake that serve as additional verification to what early church fathers and rabbis have been saying about scripture for centuries.

 

[Job 33:6]

It really doesn't discourage me at all that the truth didn't take hold in the scientific community, or that creationism is a minority view. The truth has always been the minority view. What disturbs me is that people who disbelieve in Creation claim to be Christ followers. Their taking His name in vain upsets me as much as it upsets Him.

It doesn't discourage me either, that both biblical scholarship and the scientific community have rejected young earth creationism. I'm quite thankful that people who study these subjects are honest about their findings.

But the point here is that, for the church, those that look at traditional understandings of the Bible, this is what you get. And it is a long shot from anything related to the young earth creationist approach that we find in the church today.

 

[Doug Brents]

No. Just read the Bible itself. The scriptures are the original source. But, as noted, literature of the wider ancient near east and other texts among the dead sea scrolls verify it. These texts are describing things like an ex materia creation.

And not only that, but we have countless historical records of Jewish rabbis and Christian early church fathers that further verify this historical view.

I have read the Bible itself. And it does not describe the existence of anything before God began to make everything that is from nothing beyond His own power, regardless of what other extraBiblical writings no matter how old might say. The Bible is the authority because it was authored by God Himself, and it is quite clear that God did not start with a preexisting canvas that He simply shaped.

 

[David Lamb]

No. Just read the Bible itself. The scriptures are the original source. But, as noted, literature of the wider ancient near east and other texts among the dead sea scrolls verify it. These texts are describing things like an ex materia creation.

And not only that, but we have countless historical records of Jewish rabbis and Christian early church fathers that further verify this historical view.

If you feel that tradition is important, this is it, you're looking right at it and rejecting it.

Surely the vital point is what the bible itself teaches, what God says in His Word. It doesn't need verifying by literature of the wider ancient near east. The Scriptures say quite clearly that all things were created by God, and that precludes any pre-existing material being used for that creation:

“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:3 NKJV)

“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.” (Col 1:16 NKJV)

That's not tradition; it's God's Word.

 

[Doug Brents]

It doesn't discourage me either, that both biblical scholarship and the scientific community have rejected young earth creationism.

My point is that anyone who rejects young earth creationism rejects God's Word, and calls God a liar. If you believe in Him, then you MUST believe in what He says. And He said He started with nothing and made everything that is in six days. He could have done it in a single fraction of an instant, but He chose to do it in six days.

I'm quite thankful that people who study these subjects are honest about their findings.

I am too. It helps to weed out the nonbelievers and those who only give lip service to God.

But the point here is that, for the church, those that look at traditional understandings of the Bible, this is what you get. And it is a long shot from anything related to the young earth creationist approach that we find in the church today.

Not sure what you mean by this. What is what you get? What is a long shot from what we find in the Church today?

 

[Job 33:6]

Surely the vital point is what the bible itself teaches, what God says in His Word. It doesn't need verifying by literature of the wider ancient near east. The Scriptures say quite clearly that all things were created by God, and that precludes any pre-existing material being used for that creation:

“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:3 NKJV)

“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.” (Col 1:16 NKJV)

That's not tradition; it's God's Word.

And as stated, for centuries, the understanding has been that of an ancient cosmology. Particularly with respect to what Genesis is describing. This is a topic independent of what new testament authors spoke of, several centuries later. And maybe I should just tattoo this on my forehead so that people remember it, it's not a contradiction for the new testament authors to describe different concepts than the old testament, because these are different books of the Bible, written by different people, describing different things.

Kind of like how the old testament never actually mentions Jesus. The context is different. And you can't rewrite the old testament by writing Jesus' name into it. You have to accept the OT on its own grounds in its pre-new testament context.

Here is the tradition of Bible scholars, going back to the earliest centuries of the church, and so everyone knows, it is a long long shot, vastly different than YECism.

YECism is drastically un-traditional. It is the furthest thing from Biblical tradition that one could imagine. And it's in plain view in plenty of ancient literature by early church fathers and early rabbi commentaries.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is a fun one for example:

When it raises itself up the gods are afraid; at the crashing they are beside themselves.
Job 41:25 NRSV

On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.
Isaiah 27:1 NRSV

Quartz Hill School of Theology

www.theology.edu

By his power he stilled the Sea; by his understanding he struck down Rahab. By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent.
Job 26:12‭-‬13 NRSV

When you smote litanu the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisting serpent, the dominant one who has 7 heads.
KTU 1.5 1-2 (Ugaritic ancient near east text)

surely I lifted up the dragon of the two flames. I destroyed the twisting serpent, the tyrant with the seven heads. KTU 1.3.:III:28-46

On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.
Isaiah 27:1 NRSV

And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads; and on its horns were ten diadems, and on its heads were blasphemous names.
Revelation 13:1 NRSV

Yet God my King is from of old, working salvation in the earth. You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. You cut openings for springs and torrents; you dried up ever-flowing streams. Yours is the day, yours also the night; you established the luminaries and the sun. You have fixed all the bounds of the earth; you made summer and winter. Remember this, O Lord, how the enemy scoffs, and an impious people reviles your name.
Psalms 74:12‭-‬18 NRSV

Ancient literature and the Bible alike describe leviathan as a multi headed fire breathing sea dragon. A mythological creature. Slain at the creation of the cosmos.

And yet, what do YECs do?

Oh, that must be a dinosaur. Yea, God battles a brontosaurus to bring on the eschaton.

I mean, really? It's such a complete joke that nobody, scientists nor Bible scholars alike could possibly take it seriously.

Oh wait, 99% of Bible translations reference leviathan as having multiple heads, but it must be talking about Egypt having multiple pharaohs or all the translations are wrong.

Got it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not sure what you mean by this. What is what you get? What is a long shot from what we find in the Church today?

Young earth creationism today is a long long shot, vastly different than what we find in literature of the early church and among early Jewish rabbis of the church.

For people who allegedly claim to care about tradition, there is nothing actually traditional about YECism at all.

 

[Doug Brents]

And as stated, for centuries, the understanding has been that of an ancient cosmology. Particularly with respect to what Genesis is describing. This is a topic independent of what new testament authors spoke of, several centuries later. And maybe I should just tattoo this on my forehead so that people remember it, it's not a contradiction for the new testament authors to describe different concepts than the old testament, because these are different books of the Bible, written by different people, describing different things.

No, the New Testament books are not describing different things than the OT books do. They were authored by the same person: God. And it is irrelevant what the people who wrote them "knew" before God revealed to them the truth. God revealed that He created everything that is from nothing, and that He put what is where it is and set the laws of nature in place to govern the operation of the whole world.

Kind of like how the old testament never actually mentions Jesus. The context is different. And you can't rewrite the old testament by writing Jesus' name into it. You have to accept the OT on its own grounds in its pre-new testament context.

Jesus' name does not appear in the OT, but He is there all over the place all through the OT, starting with Gen 3 where the Seed of woman is prophesied to wound Satan's head. And He is mentioned in many other places in the OT. They didn't know the name to apply to the one who was to come, but all of the OT points forward to the coming of the One to fulfill the many prophecies about Him.

Here is the tradition of Bible scholars, going back to the earliest centuries of the church, and so everyone knows, it is a long long shot, vastly different than YECism.

YECism is drastically un-traditional. It is the furthest thing from Biblical tradition that one could imagine. And it's in plain view in plenty of ancient literature by early church fathers and early rabbi commentaries.

And a thousand years from now, people will be able to point back to your and your ilk to "prove" that even today the YEC view was the minority view. But the truth doesn't depend on a majority believing it. The truth is the truth regardless of anyone believing it. According to Scriptural calculation, the Earth is only 5923 years old. And all of the archeology that you can point to is less than 4266 years old (post-Flood).

 

[Job 33:6]

No, the New Testament books are not describing different things than the OT books do. They were authored by the same person: God. And it is irrelevant what the people who wrote them "knew" before God revealed to them the truth. God revealed that He created everything that is from nothing, and that He put what is where it is and set the laws of nature in place to govern the operation of the whole world.

Jesus' name does not appear in the OT, but He is there all over the place all through the OT, starting with Gen 3 where the Seed of woman is prophesied to wound Satan's head. And He is mentioned in many other places in the OT. They didn't know the name to apply to the one who was to come, but all of the OT points forward to the coming of the One to fulfill the many prophecies about Him.

And a thousand years from now, people will be able to point back to your and your ilk to "prove" that even today the YEC view was the minority view. But the truth doesn't depend on a majority believing it. The truth is the truth regardless of anyone believing it. According to Scriptural calculation, the Earth is only 5923 years old. And all of the archeology that you can point to is less than 4266 years old (post-Flood).

Your not acknowledging church tradition. You're ignoring it in favor of some new aged YEC scientism.

Actual church tradition is nothing like what you're arguing. It's vastly different, as noted in this video:

It's not even debatable. Jewish rabbis of antiquity and early church fathers left plenty of literature on their understanding of Genesis, and it is nothing like what you're arguing for.

People have eyeballs, in case you didn't know. It's in plain view. The early church and early rabbis of antiquity, and all ancient near eastern cultures abroad, collectively, both Bible scholars and extra Biblical alike, describes ancient cosmologies. That's how the Bible has historically been understood.

That's tradition. And anyone with eyeballs can see that. It's not even a secret. It's right in plain view for anyone that spends 10 minutes reading about ancient church literature.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The importance is that Jesus believed Moses wrote some of the Old Testament Scriptures.

"Some" I can go along with that, but how much is indeterminable.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

There is no inference in my statement. Evolutionism is debunked by evolutionist's own theories and "laws". Yes, there is evidence of adaptation within a species to a new or changing environment, but one species does not change into another species, let alone into a different genus, or family, or order, class, phylum, or kingdom. God made every living creature to reproduce according to its kind. Its kind does not change no matter how many generations you go through.

If it were not an inference there would be no debate.

The New Testament writings were understood to be Scripture from the time of their writing (2 Pet 3:14-16). And Paul acknowledges Luke's Gospel to be Scripture (1 Tim 5:18). And there are others as well. As for the Old Testament writings being Scripture, the Law (the first five books of the Bible), the Prophets (the books of the prophets) and the Writings (the books of poetry (Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, etc.) were accounted as Scripture for many hundreds of years before Jesus came. And He accounts them to be Scripture (Matt 5:17, Luke 24:44). Man does not make these writings God breathed. God inspires them, and we acknowledge His work.

So it does not matter who the author was. Could have been Moses, Isaiah, Jerimiah, David and many, many others.

 

[Doug Brents]

Your not acknowledging church tradition. You're ignoring it in favor of some new aged YEC scientism.

Actual church tradition is nothing like what you're arguing. It's vastly different, as noted in this video:

You would consider yourself to be part of "church tradition", so yes, I am ignoring your sect of "church tradition". Just because they lived 3000 years ago, doesn't make the people who lived then correct in their views of what the world was like, or what Scripture said. You believe the nonsense you are saying about an "old Earth", and you are wrong. So 1000 years from now, someone will point to you and your ilk and say, "look, they believed this back then...". But they will be just as wrong then as you are now, as the "church tradition" you are citing was then.

I accept what the Scriptures say. And it is very clear on a young Earth (only about 5923 years old).

 

[Job 33:6]

You would consider yourself to be part of "church tradition", so yes, I am ignoring your sect of "church tradition". Just because they lived 3000 years ago, doesn't make the people who lived then correct in their views of what the world was like, or what Scripture said. You believe the nonsense you are saying about an "old Earth", and you are wrong. So 1000 years from now, someone will point to you and your ilk and say, "look, they believed this back then...". But they will be just as wrong then as you are now, as the "church tradition" you are citing was then.

I accept what the Scriptures say. And it is very clear on a young Earth (only about 5923 years old).,

This has nothing to do with me. I'm talking about literature of early church fathers and rabbis of antiquity.

It's not even debatable. Jewish rabbis of antiquity and early church fathers left plenty of literature on their understanding of Genesis, and it is nothing like what you're arguing for.

People have eyeballs, in case you didn't know. It's in plain view. The early church and early rabbis of antiquity, and all ancient near eastern cultures abroad, collectively, both Bible scholars and extra Biblical alike, describes ancient cosmologies. That's how the Bible has historically been understood.

That's tradition. And anyone with eyeballs can see that. It's not even a secret. It's right in plain view for anyone that spends 10 minutes reading about ancient church literature.

And Saint John Chrysostom, Mark Abba the great, John Calvin, bereshit rabba and the Hebrew Torah are not "sects". This is church tradition.

Even Saint Augustine has literature on how the waters above might cool the temperature of Saturn. And it's widely available in his writings on Genesis.

Modern day YECism is just some weird scientism that has nothing to do with traditional views of Genesis. No literature from any early church fathers or Jewish rabbi of antiquity, no literature at all, exists anywhere, describing anything other than this ancient perspective on cosmology of Genesis.

Modern day YECism is just some modern invention masquerading as "traditional" but in fact, there is nothing traditional about it, at all.