TE attitude about Genesis

[jereth]

It seems that in all creation vs. evolution debates, there is a terrible misconception about the way TEists regard Genesis. Here are some illustrative quotes from recent threads:

"It seems that all Creationist arguments come back to believing that Genesis is literally the word of God."
YEC quote: "I don't blame TEs for anything. If anything I pity them for not being able to accept God as He Himself has told and shown us through His Word and creation."

"What are YECs protecting?"
YEC response: "God and His Word."

Another YEC: "I'm just looking at this from the angle that the Bible is 100% God's word"


Perhaps if we (TEists) can adequately demonstrate our reverential attitude towards Genesis as inspired and truthful Scripture, YECists might give us a chance to explain why we think what we think, rather than shooting us down as Bible-destroyers.

 

[DaveS]

I definitely believe that Genesis is an inspired and truthful description of creation. However, you must also consider the context of the words AND the method of how this description would have been explainable from vision form. In short, it is the correct order of events but like most things contains a certain margin of "contextism" (the whole day=age thing), the use of words ('from the dust' = evolution?) and possibly human error also. Symbology is also a factor.

 

[mark kennedy]

YEC is not just based on the literal truth of the Word of God. There are also valid scientific reasons to question the validity of the Single Common Ancestor Model. However, the Bible as history is vital to the Christian faith and non-negotiable as the basis for our worldview.

 

[chaoschristian]

Another poll that puts TEs on the defensive? Another opportunity for us to defend our claim to faith against the ill-founded misconceptions of others?

No thank you.

The problem with these polls is that they tacitly acknowledge that neo-creationist questioning of our faith and the veracity of our claim to faith is valid.

Well, it's not. If we are bearing the Christian icon on CF, then we have already witnessed, before God, that we embrace the tenets of the Nicene Creed and are thereby fully orthodox in our Christian world view.

I understand the intent behind the poll, but ultimately all it does is cede the high ground to the neo-creationists, ground that they have neither earned or to which they have even established a legitimate claim.

 

[steen]

A lot of problems with the wording.

For one, I am not concerned with other people not understanding my views of the Bible and of Science unless they actually are trying to understand me and what I am saying. I don't see such concern from YEC.

As for the questions, obviously Genesis is part of Scripture, as it is in the Bible, obviously it teach us the truth about God, although what "truth" is very much is dependent on the individual, making it a meaningless point. Likewise regarding the "truth" about mankind. And the 'truth" about creation? certainly, it is the truth of the spiritual/religious/Christian creation that the individual lives. Now, it clearly is not the SCIENTIFIC truth, but that is not necessary in the way the question is asked. Is the teaching reliable? Sure it is, but what is taught is also dependent on the individual. I suspect that a YEC is being taught something else than I am being taught. Asd for doctrine, yes it is part of it. As for the Holy Spirit, that's tricky. per my upbringing in a Scandinavian Lutheran Church, the Holy Spirit didn't appear until after Jesus died on the Cross, so that must be a no, at least in my Biblical understanding. Is it foundation, yes as it is part of the Bible. Do I accept the teachings, yes, but again, the teachings might not be the same as what the YEC feels is being taught.

 

[vossler]

The problem with polls like this is that they really don't say much of anything and just serve as lip service. I can tell you that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, but if my actions don't support my words, well, they're just meaningless words. Some national polls will tell you that 90% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians, yet that is hardly born out by their actions.

 

[steen]

The problem with polls like this is that they really don't say much of anything and just serve as lip service. I can tell you that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, but if my actions don't support my words, well, they're just meaningless words. Some national polls will tell you that 90% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians, yet that is hardly born out by their actions.

Hence, your reality has little or no impact in my life and my relationship with God.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The problem with polls like this is that they really don't say much of anything and just serve as lip service. I can tell you that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, but if my actions don't support my words, well, they're just meaningless words. Some national polls will tell you that 90% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians, yet that is hardly born out by their actions.

Are you saying that you feel that TEs are not Christians? If not, could you please explain your post because I can see no other reason for it other than insinuating that TEs are not Christians?

 

[PETE_]

If we are bearing the Christian icon on CF, then we have already witnessed, before God, that we embrace the tenets of the Nicene Creed and are thereby fully orthodox in our Christian world view.
There are many on here with that icon that do not embrace the NC, so starting with any position against the Bible being inerrant puts hem on defense from the start.

Many brilliant people support young earth and can give sound reasons for that belief but are dismissed because God is attached to it.

Maturity in life and in Christ usually takes out alot of the hostility. In the real world not many young people debate the older crowd, it would be very intimidating to argue with someone twice you age and experience. But on the net it happens all the time.

I do not think TE is accurate but that view in itself is not going to send anyone to hell. If "christians" really believed everything in the Bible they would live their lives differently.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Many brilliant people support young earth and can give sound reasons for that belief but are dismissed because God is attached to it.

this is the fundamental issue that the whole discussion revolves around.

What are these sound reasons to believe that God created the earth within the last 10K years?

 

[Mskedi]

I would say Genesis teaches about God, and as such, is important to a Christian's understanding of God (thus my votes for #s 2 and 6). Also, I believe that, though it shows a human understanding of God, that that understanding was inspired and/or influenced by the holy spirit, thus my vote for #7.

 

[chaoschristian]

If we are bearing the Christian icon on CF, then we have already witnessed, before God, that we embrace the tenets of the Nicene Creed and are thereby fully orthodox in our Christian world view.

There are many on here with that icon that do not embrace the NC, so starting with any position against the Bible being inerrant puts hem on defense from the start.

Scriptural inerrancy is not a part of orthodox Christianity. And before you sling 2 Timothy 3:16 at me, remember that divine inspiration and inerrancy are two different concepts. I think you will be hard pressed to find a TE who doesn't subscribe to the divine inspiration and authority of scripture.

Where in the Nicene Creed is scriptual inerrancy mentioned? Where is the mention of the Bible? Any reference to scripture at all?

So, one's stance on inerrancy (whatever that is) is irrelevant in regards to one's orthodoxy, one's faith, or one's witness.

 

[Lilandra]

I stand by what what I said in your OP. What I am saying about folklore and Genesis is not new. C.S. Lewis wrote about it in "Miracles" in 1947...

From a footnote to Chapter 15: "My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history . . . nor diabolical illusion . . . nor priestly lying . . . but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. . . .

http://www.montreat.edu/dking/lewis/MYTH.htm

It seems that in all creation vs. evolution debates, there is a terrible misconception about the way TEists regard Genesis. Here are some illustrative quotes from recent threads:

"It seems that all Creationist arguments come back to believing that Genesis is literally the word of God."
YEC quote: "I don't blame TEs for anything. If anything I pity them for not being able to accept God as He Himself has told and shown us through His Word and creation."

"What are YECs protecting?"
YEC response: "God and His Word."

Another YEC: "I'm just looking at this from the angle that the Bible is 100% God's word"


Perhaps if we (TEists) can adequately demonstrate our reverential attitude towards Genesis as inspired and truthful Scripture, YECists might give us a chance to explain why we think what we think, rather than shooting us down as Bible-destroyers.

 

[Willtor]

The problem with polls like this is that they really don't say much of anything and just serve as lip service. I can tell you that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, but if my actions don't support my words, well, they're just meaningless words. Some national polls will tell you that 90% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians, yet that is hardly born out by their actions.

I don't think it's necessarily lip service. And herein lies the limitation of an internet forum. I'd love to hang out with any of you. But the fact is, we're nowhere close to each other. Most of what you know about me is filtered through the medium of this forum. If I'm particularly clever, you won't see any part of me that I don't want to show you, and you may even see things that aren't so that I do want to show you. I might be an elaborate parody, and write theological essays as cover. Now, I'm not saying that I do any of this (though, as to covering things, I will say that the medium gives me opportunity to process what I say before I say it), but it is the inherent epistemological limit of an internet forum. I think if you knew me in real life, you wouldn't be concerned as to whether I was dedicated to Christ. You would probably come to some perspective on the matter, and you might be right or you might be mistaken, but this notion of quoting percentages to determine whether I am doing lip service to these statements would be out of the question.

The question is not whether we are doing lip service, but whether we can afford to give each other the benefit of the doubt. As limiting as this medium may be, we could simply choose to take each other at face value and treat each other as brothers who happen to disagree on hermeneutics. Not that this disagreement is a matter to be taken lightly, but that we can accept that we are all sincere (and some of us are sincerely mistaken). In the context of debating the issues, some people act inappropriately, but they don't teach rhetoric in school, like they did in the middle ages, and it's a weakness we'll overcome.

 

[Willtor]

Oh, I forgot - I'm a TE and I have an obligation to redefine some terms (or they revoke my TE license; no more free subs at the EAC sub shop):

Genesis 1-3 is foundational to the covenant, Gospel and Redemption

I was hesitant to sign off on this because I wasn't sure what you meant by "foundational." To be sure, the notion of redemption is missing a piece if Man never had fellowship with God to begin with, and doctrine regarding the necessity of Christ's death is, at the very least, altered. But the gospel still stands and a person could easily come to faith without ever hearing about the creation of the world or Adam and Eve.

That said, I took "foundational" to mean that it is a substantial piece of the framework for understanding the work of Christ.

 

[jereth]

Another poll that puts TEs on the defensive? Another opportunity for us to defend our claim to faith against the ill-founded misconceptions of others?

No thank you.

I fully understand your frustration, chaoschristian. At the same time, let me assure you that I do not feel "on the defensive" in any way. I started this thread because I really do think that there is widespread ignorance and misinformation amongst YECists about our view of Scripture (and Genesis in particular). The warlords of YECism (eg. AiG) see to that very well.

What I want to do is honestly show them that we are not the hypocrites we are accused of being, who say "I love Jesus" in one breath and "I don't trust the Bible" in the next. Of course, people such as vossler may suspect that we are just doing "lip service". But I would hope that most YECists will be willing to give us the benefit of the doubt -- we are followers of the same Christ, after all.

My hope is that some YECists at least will pause for thought when they see that most TEists believe that Genesis 1-3 are God-inspired words which are included in the Scriptures to teach us truth. They might then be inclined to listen to us when we try to explain that the truth which we think Gen 1-3 teaches is not the truth which they assume it teaches. Perhaps the way will then be open for better understanding between us.

 

[jereth]

Genesis 1-3 is foundational to the covenant, Gospel and Redemption

I was hesitant to sign off on this because I wasn't sure what you meant by "foundational." To be sure, the notion of redemption is missing a piece if Man never had fellowship with God to begin with, and doctrine regarding the necessity of Christ's death is, at the very least, altered. But the gospel still stands and a person could easily come to faith without ever hearing about the creation of the world or Adam and Eve.

That said, I took "foundational" to mean that it is a substantial piece of the framework for understanding the work of Christ.

Yes, that is basically what I meant. Whatever you think about the details, Genesis 1-3 teaches us that God is creator, and that mankind has become immersed in a sinful condition. Therefore, we have the foundation laid for salvation -- the lifting of man out of his sinful condition.

Note that I deliberately left each of the options as vague as possible. For instance, you have "Genesis 1-3 teaches us truth about creation", without actually specifying what this truth is. For sure, YECists and TEists disagree as to the nature of the truth that Genesis 1-3 teaches, but no one is going to say that Genesis 1-3 does not contain anything truthful at all!

The same applies for "foundational" -- deliberately left vague. YECists think Genesis 1-3 is foundational because it teaches that the earth was once a deathless paradise where wolves did not eat lambs. Their entire gospel collapses in a heap if this is not true. We disagree with them, but this does not mean that we reject the foundational nature of Genesis 1-3. We just believe that it is foundational in a slightly different way.

 

[steen]

What I want to do is honestly show them that we are not the hypocrites we are accused of being, who say "I love Jesus" in one breath and "I don't trust the Bible" in the next. Of course, people such as vossler may suspect that we are just doing "lip service". But I would hope that most YECists will be willing to give us the benefit of the doubt -- we are followers of the same Christ, after all.

Do you honestly think that will make a lick of difference? When YEC are able to make the claims they do, how can you even remotely expect them to be open about this? Can you imagine them accepting anything other that "No, you are right, YEC is the full and only truth"?

My hope is that some YECists at least will pause for thought when they see that most TEists believe that Genesis 1-3 are God-inspired words which are included in the Scriptures to teach us truth.

I don't for a second believe they are intellectually that willing to be open when you look at the claims they make in general. Unbiasedand sincere evaluation of a situation is not their style in my experience. My experience with YEC is 100% dogma and nothing else. And I have been on groups like this for a long time.

YEC are not ishowing nterested in exploration or searching for facts, common ground or anything like that. They have 2 interests ony. To "win," and to show strong faith. Righteousness and fear, that's all that drives them. So tell me how a exploratory poll will make a dent in that?

They might then be inclined to listen to us when we try to explain that the truth which we think Gen 1-3 teaches is not the truth which they assume it teaches. Perhaps the way will then be open for better understanding between us.

We can hope. 20 years, and I have NEVER seen even a hint of such an interest from the YEC.

[edited for harsh language]

 

[jereth]

Brother, I think you are generalising too much. Yes, there are many YECs who are as stubborn as you describe. But there are also many who have a courteous respect for other points of view. If this wasn't so, I wouldn't bother participating in a forum like this.

Do you honestly think that will make a lick of difference? When YEC are able to make the claims they do, how can you even remotely expect them to be honest about this? Can you imagine them accepting anything other that "No, you are right, YEC is the full and only truth"?

I don't for a second believe they are intellectually that honest when you look at the claims they make in general. Honest and sincere evaluation of a situation is not their style. My experience with YEC is 100% blind, uneducated dogma and nothing else. And I have been on groups like this for a long time.

YEC are not interested in exploration or searching for facts, common ground or anything like that. they have 2 interests ony. To "win," and to show God how strong their faith is so they will be saved. Aggression and fear, that's all that drives them. So tell me how a exploratory poll will make a dent in that?

We can hope. 20 years, and I have NEVER seen even a hint of such an interest from the YEC.

 

[steen]

Brother, I think you are generalising too much. Yes, there are many YECs who are as stubborn as you describe. But there are also many who have a courteous respect for other points of view. If this wasn't so, I wouldn't bother participating in a forum like this.

Can you point me towards them? I would be very inetrested in finding out what they have to say. As I said, in the last 20 years, I must have failed to come across them.