The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[gluadys]

Why?

because new genuine findings of human fossils made Piltdown Man more and more out of step with the actual emerging picture of human evolutionary history.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I am a young earth creationist that believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis, though I'd like to know where it says that the Earth is actually flat.

I consider Genesis to be literal history and I acknowledge that to interpret it allegorically would be to upset the core meaning of the Bible - that is Jesus Christ is our Redeemer because we are in a fallen world that is in need of redemption. Figurative interpretation allows for the process of death and decay to be considered an integral part of reality, rather than a curse as a result of sin. This in turn can lead to a kind of dualistic theology - something that the original Church Fathers fought against. Furthermore, Jesus Christ Himself quoted from the book of Genesis a number of times in The NT as literal fact and history.

As far as evolution goes, I don't deny the existence of DNA or natural selection, though I seriously doubt that it is a natural loophole in the second law of thermodynamics. I would like to guess that if we could see changes in life on the Earth fastforwarded over thousands of years, we would see more of a de-evolutionary process from the slow decay of complex ecological systems. I believe that creatures were designed to adapt over time but reproduce after their own "kinds" as presented in Genesis.

I think it's interesting that modern naturalistic theories on the existence of dinosaurs suggest that a world-wide cataclysm brought about their extinction whereas Genesis teaches of just such a phenomenon. I also think it's interesting that many cultures around the world share similar stories and legends of this flood. Not only that but a world-wide flood of epic proportions could very well be the cause for the formation of the geological strata upon which evolutionary theory is grounded. It would make sense since in order for an animal to be fossilized it must be abrubtly buried in sediment. Though this isn't very scientific of me, it reminds me of those contraptions you can find in the local malls with two glass plates filled with water and sand: when you flip one over the sand sinks through the water and settles into striped formations on the bottom.

I guess that would put me into category #3.

 

[gluadys]

I am a young earth creationist that believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis, though I'd like to know where it says that the Earth is actually flat.

I consider Genesis to be literal history and I acknowledge that to interpret it allegorically would be to upset the core meaning of the Bible - that is Jesus Christ is our Redeemer because we are in a fallen world that is in need of redemption. Figurative interpretation allows for the process of death and decay to be considered an integral part of reality, rather than a curse as a result of sin. This in turn can lead to a kind of dualistic theology - something that the original Church Fathers fought against. Furthermore, Jesus Christ Himself quoted from the book of Genesis a number of times in The NT as literal fact and history.

As far as evolution goes, I don't deny the existence of DNA or natural selection, though I seriously doubt that it is a natural loophole in the second law of thermodynamics. I would like to guess that if we could see changes in life on the Earth fastforwarded over thousands of years, we would see more of a de-evolutionary process from the slow decay of complex ecological systems. I believe that creatures were designed to adapt over time but reproduce after their own "kinds" as presented in Genesis.

I think it's interesting that modern naturalistic theories on the existence of dinosaurs suggest that a world-wide cataclysm brought about their extinction whereas Genesis teaches of just such a phenomenon. I also think it's interesting that many cultures around the world share similar stories and legends of this flood. Not only that but a world-wide flood of epic proportions could very well be the cause for the formation of the geological strata upon which evolutionary theory is grounded. It would make sense since in order for an animal to be fossilized it must be abrubtly buried in sediment. Though this isn't very scientific of me, it reminds me of those contraptions you can find in the local malls with two glass plates filled with water and sand: when you flip one over the sand sinks through the water and settles into striped formations on the bottom.

I guess that would put me into category #3.

This thread is more for self-identification than discussion, so if you want to follow up I would suggest a new thread. But many of your statements indicate that you have some erroneous ideas about evolution, and about science generally.

 

[AliOgg]

But many of your statements indicate that you have some erroneous ideas about evolution, and about science generally.

Which would suggest that he has much in common with many evolutionists and scientists.......... and me

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[AliOgg]

though I'd like to know where it says that the Earth is actually flat.

Me to

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[AliOgg]

This thread is more for self-identification than discussion

Is this not for the person who started this thread to decide

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[statrei]

I am a young earth creationist that believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis

Does this mean that you believe that someone besides Elohim created the waters? Please note that nowhere in the entire Genesis account do we find that Elohim created water. Do you still believe in this literal interpretation?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Does this mean that you believe that someone besides Elohim created the waters? Please note that nowhere in the entire Genesis account do we find that Elohim created water. Do you still believe in this literal interpretation?

I believe that Elohim created the waters as He created all things. If the waters which are referred to in Genesis are contained within the heavens, then Elohim created the waters since He created the heavens according to Genesis 1:1.

 

[statrei]

I believe that Elohim created the waters as He created all things. If the waters which are referred to in Genesis are contained within the heavens, then Elohim created the waters since He created the heavens according to Genesis 1:1.

That puts you in some deep water because on the fourth day "He made the stars also." Would those stars not be a part or the heavens He made in Gen. 1:1? It becomes more and more obvious that Moses did not intend you to take the literalistic approach to Genesis. It appears he was more concerned with WHO created rather than with HOW it was created. It would be a misuse to use the text in a way in which it was not intended, no matter how lofty your ideals.

 

[Sojourner<><]

That puts you in some deep water because on the fourth day "He made the stars also." Would those stars not be a part or the heavens He made in Gen. 1:1? It becomes more and more obvious that Moses did not intend you to take the literalistic approach to Genesis. It appears he was more concerned with WHO created rather than with HOW it was created. It would be a misuse to use the text in a way in which it was not intended, no matter how lofty your ideals.

I'm not sure that I see your point. If God made the stars also, then that's exactly what it means.

As far as Moses goes, I believe in compilation of patriarchal records. These records are divided into sections each beginning with "These are the generations of...". I don't believe that Moses invented Genesis.

 

[depthdeception]

One of the things that I have noticed is that there is a general misuse of the word "literal" in these discussions about the interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts.

For example, the closest "category" in which I would fit would probably be something like Theistic Evolution. However, I would concomitantly affirm a literal reading of Genesis.

My reasoning is that a literal reading of Genesis has very little to do with what the text says to someone in the post-modern (and post-pre-modern!) 21st century, but is rather wrapped up in what the intention of the author was in writing the document.

Therefore, if the author's intention is anything other than attempting to convery a scientifically verifiable explanation fo the mechanism of creation (which is absurd to a pre-scientific era), then it is entirely possible to embrace an evolutionary view of creation while still maintaining a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I know this is beyond the scope of this thread. So, if you are interested in pursuing this more, see this one which is more closely related. http://www.christianforums.com/t1724341-a-literal-reading-of-genesis.html

 

[gluadys]

One of the things that I have noticed is that there is a general misuse of the word "literal" in these discussions about the interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts.

For example, the closest "category" in which I would fit would probably be something like Theistic Evolution. However, I would concomitantly affirm a literal reading of Genesis.

I agree. Often I see "literal" used as equivalent to "what the text most likely means to a 21st century reader who has not had the opportunity to study it in historical context." Often this is quite different from the intended meaning of the author and is not a literal meaning at all, but a figurative understanding that has been absorbed into popular culture within the last 300-500 years.

Sometimes "literal" is used simply to mean "true" or "real".

 

[SuperNova]

#3. Young Earth.

I'll cite these videos as a source of evidence for why I believe as I do. Plus I believe it fits the Bible the best

http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/

Astronomy and the Bible is a good one.

 

[statrei]

I'm not sure that I see your point. If God made the stars also, then that's exactly what it means.

All you know is what is written in Genesis. We are already agreed that Genesis makes no mention of water having been created by Elohim. Does this mean, by your reckoning, that Elohim did not create the waters?

 

[statrei]

I believe that Elohim created the waters as He created all things. If the waters which are referred to in Genesis are contained within the heavens, then Elohim created the waters since He created the heavens according to Genesis 1:1.

Now you are beginnig to shave the truth to fit your point. Gen. 1:1 says he created the heavens and the earth, not only the heavens. These flags are too big and too red for us to be missing them.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Now you are beginnig to shave the truth to fit your point. Gen. 1:1 says he created the heavens and the earth, not only the heavens. These flags are too big and too red for us to be missing them.

How so?

 

[Sojourner<><]

All you know is what is written in Genesis. We are already agreed that Genesis makes no mention of water having been created by Elohim. Does this mean, by your reckoning, that Elohim did not create the waters?

Absolutely not.

First of all I don't subscribe to the idea that we have to have a detailed description of the creation of every individual thing in order to assume that God created it. God created the Universe... that's a very broad category that most everything can fit into.

Second of all, if for some reason you want to focus on water, here's an interesting little tidbit. The word for "heaven" as used in Genesis 1:1 is "shamayim" and its meaning basically corresponds to all of space, which is a more modern concept. There may be a connection to two other hebrew root words: "sham" which means "there" and "mayim" which means "waters".

 

[statrei]

Absolutely not.

First of all I don't subscribe to the idea that we have to have a detailed description of the creation of every individual thing in order to assume that God created it. God created the Universe... that's a very broad category that most everything can fit into.

Second of all, if for some reason you want to focus on water, here's an interesting little tidbit. The word for "heaven" as used in Genesis 1:1 is "shamayim" and its meaning basically corresponds to all of space, which is a more modern concept. There may be a connection to two other hebrew root words: "sham" which means "there" and "mayim" which means "waters".

We both agree that the universe was created, but you cannot now deny that Gen. 1 goes into a lot of detail about the creation yet leaves out details about what appears to be central. Do not ignore the authors deliberate structure. If the heavens were created in Gen 1:1, as you seem to suggest then what happened on the fourth day? You can't create then what has already been created, nor would you suggest that the stars are not a part of the heavens. I think the author is making a point and everyone is ignoring it.

 

[Sojourner<><]

We both agree that the universe was created, but you cannot now deny that Gen. 1 goes into a lot of detail about the creation yet leaves out details about what appears to be central. Do not ignore the authors deliberate structure. If the heavens were created in Gen 1:1, as you seem to suggest then what happened on the fourth day? You can't create then what has already been created, nor would you suggest that the stars are not a part of the heavens. I think the author is making a point and everyone is ignoring it.

The fact that God created the Universe on the first day doesn't mean that He created everything on the first day. On the fourth day God created the sun, moon and stars. We know that these were not created with the rest of the Universe because He created them later.

 

[statrei]

The fact that God created the Universe on the first day doesn't mean that He created everything on the first day. On the fourth day God created the sun, moon and stars. We know that these were not created with the rest of the Universe because He created them later.

That is flawed reasoning. You are limited by the fact that you wish to make the Bible a technical manual. Moses was writing an account with a specific purpose. He could have used much more direct language to state what you are inferring here. Of course, you have not accounted for water either. Let's be rational instead of being driven by our official beliefs. Beliefs are only working hypotheses.