• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

suppose Darwin deeply wrong

Discussion in 'Creationism' started by Sanzio, Jan 27, 2020.

  1. Tom 1

    Tom 1 Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +9,112
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    Sure, scholars like John Walton and David Rosenberg, among others, use their familiarity with what can be learned about the culture and thinking of the time to create a means to gain some understanding of the text as it was written. Literary devices such as the use of periods of time to represent ideas of sequence and completion, the meanings of specific terms in their original setting and so on add up to provide a coherent and useful framework for understanding the text. I find that useful. What are essentially personal interpretations, which vary quite a bit even when more or less in the same ball park, less so.
     
  2. Jonathan Walkerin

    Jonathan Walkerin Well-Known Member

    +1,494
    Sweden
    Catholic
    Married
    For that to be true earth would need to be a closed system which it demonstrably is not.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  3. MrsFoundit

    MrsFoundit Well-Known Member

    899
    +194
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    Genesis says there were days before there was a sun, or before it was in position, so on this you are just plain wrong.

    This is outright defiance of the actual text, because the word "day" is right there, no one is "inventing" it.

    You do realise that belief in direct miraculous creation means there is no "since human language first developed" ?

    The "criteria" here can only be illogically applying human science to test the viability of a supernatural event. If you are going to do that, the existence of God cannot be literally true either.
     
  4. Tom 1

    Tom 1 Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +9,112
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    A day where there is no sun is not a day as we understand it. Hence, it must mean something else.
     
  5. Tom 1

    Tom 1 Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +9,112
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    No, that isn't the only option. The question of interpreting the text in those terms only arises through modern ideas about the intent of the original writers, ideas that are born out of modern thinking. In other words, if you take the text to be an actual attempt to explain the physical origins of the universe, then you impose artificial limitations on its meaning.
     
  6. Jamsie

    Jamsie Well-Known Member Supporter

    +872
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    How does it support abiogenesis when clearly it is based on God's fiat/command? The sole agency is "And God said"...God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the "incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced". So how does God's command equate to abiogenesis?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2020
  7. Jamsie

    Jamsie Well-Known Member Supporter

    +872
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    No, the earth/ground/land didn't do it by itself... it was by God's command/fiat which is exactly what the text states. How did God "form" the "wild animals" and "birds"? One would need to suggest that God's commands were insufficient to accomplish his purpose.
    Psalm 33:6 – "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made ..."
    Hebrews 11:3 – "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command,..."
    2 Peter 3:5 - "...that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water by water."

    Either God's commands were all sufficient or they were not... the only implication is those who claim his commands required further effort!
     
  8. coffee4u

    coffee4u Well-Known Member

    +1,001
    Australia
    Christian
    Married
    "Once you start inventing ideas about a 'day'"
    Scripture is my invention now?
    3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

    No, a day is what God says it is because he makes the rules for it not us.

    God said it was a day not me.

    Yes, there are and as we all know in Hebrew literature yom with numbers and evening and morning only ever means a literal day.

    You read it and want to fit millions of years into it that is the only reason you don't want it to be a day. A child reading Genesis will understand that God created over 6 days because that is the plain reading of it. Invent whatever fabrications you like, because that is what they are.

    Exodus 20:11
    "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

    6 days.
     
  9. coffee4u

    coffee4u Well-Known Member

    +1,001
    Australia
    Christian
    Married
    I believe all those scriptures
    and yes Gods command was sufficient
    What are you are on about?
     
  10. Jamsie

    Jamsie Well-Known Member Supporter

    +872
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    I thought it obvious … Genesis states that God's commands were all sufficient, that God commanded the water and land - which explicitly is mediate creation, that any statements beyond "And God said" with command is parenthetical, That the reference to "day" must refer to the command. So that given that then much is open to interpretation as to the how, timeframe, etc. … simple as that!
     
  11. Tom 1

    Tom 1 Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +9,112
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    You have to see the irony here - as well as creating the notion of a 24hr day without a sun or a moon, you're also inventing thoughts that you think I have. Which of the two of us is making fabrications?

    The question isn't about the length of the days, as that comes from the same later thinking imposed on the text. The importance of the 7 days for the original writers lies in the sequence and ordering of the stages of 'creation' and the placement of God and his creation in relation to each other.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  12. JackRT

    JackRT OOPS!!! Supporter

    +14,570
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    I believe that the main difficulty is that we are trying to reconcile the understandings of a pre-scientific culture three thousand years ago with modern scientific understandings. Some solve the problem by simply rejecting modern understandings by insisting on a literal reading of the Biblical text. Others reject the Biblical text or attempt to read it in an allegorical way. It is the difference between a "true story" and a "truth story". Personally I read it as a truth story like the parables of Jesus.
     
  13. MrsFoundit

    MrsFoundit Well-Known Member

    899
    +194
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    Creationism is really not "essentially personal interpretation", it is a simple matter of if the text says "day" we believe it means "day".
     
  14. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,713
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    But you are left interpreting the meaning of the word day, none the less. "Day" is just a word. But behind the word, you interpret it to mean something specific.

    If there was no sun, then the meaning of day, of course isn't a 24 hour period, as such a period requires a son.
     
  15. MrsFoundit

    MrsFoundit Well-Known Member

    899
    +194
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    "As such, evolutionary creationism would be a perfectly acceptable view for Christians who take both the Bible and science seriously." John Walton, deliberately accommodating human science, with no biblical reason to do it.
    “Natural” and “Supernatural” are Modern Categories, Not Biblical Ones - Articles

    "However, what Walton thinks of as the typical ANE mind-set has been criticised elsewhere as being “simply false”, based on an over-generalization from very little data." Lost World of John Walton - creation.com . John Walton not so well regarded as an expert on the culture and thinking of the time there.

    "Rosenberg believes that, when we read biblical poetry, we are simultaneously learning about “our history, and with it our souls”. He stresses a “Hebraic culture” and the concomitant imperative to set “ancient Jerusalem on an artistic par with Athens, Elizabethan London and [Modernist] Paris”.

    In approaching the Torah as ancient literature, he aims to show “that the Bible’s hundreds of lost writers can take their imaginative place beside Homer, Sophocles, Plato and Virgil”."
    https://www.thejc.com/culture/books/bible-as-our-shakespeare-homer-plato-and-virgil-1.489174
    David Rosenberg, who seems to regard it as fiction.
     
  16. MrsFoundit

    MrsFoundit Well-Known Member

    899
    +194
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    I do not deny interpreting, nor do I deny others doing it. The text says "day", no one is inventing that. 24 hours can happen without a sun.
     
  17. Tom 1

    Tom 1 Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +9,112
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    Well, you can simply take the word of some other people who have similar ideas to your own, or you can read the books yourself and make up your own mind.
     
  18. coffee4u

    coffee4u Well-Known Member

    +1,001
    Australia
    Christian
    Married
    Yes, thank you.
    It says day I believe day. It's that simple. There is no interpreting.
    This is not my invention, it is what the text says.

    No, it's not 'just a word' Words have meaning and God said it was a day-so it was a day, a plain 24 hour day. God said there was light, evening and morning. I don't care that the sun wasn't there. If God can make a day without a sun, he can make a day without a sun. I am done arguing with you over your semantics over the word day and trying to pin the one being inventive on me.
     
  19. Jonathan Walkerin

    Jonathan Walkerin Well-Known Member

    +1,494
    Sweden
    Catholic
    Married
    Then the child asks since the God is omnipotent why did He take so long to create all the stuff ? Why did He rest since perfect being probaply does not get tired ?

    And your answer will be "it is what the text says."

    After which the child thinks you are dumb with your literal interpretation for not to seeing certain inconsistencies in your logic but humors you to get some ice cream.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2020
  20. MrsFoundit

    MrsFoundit Well-Known Member

    899
    +194
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    What child?
     
Loading...