The TE Creation Story

[artybloke]

There is no reason to lie about the simple order of events; there is no reason to lie that there was no rain.

Again, what's with the word lie? If it's a poem or a myth, then the precise order of it has to do with the internal consistency of the poem or myth, and its relationship to other poems or myths on the same subject, not to do with the factual accuracy.

"Factual accuracy" in terms of stories is no more relevant than is the calculation of pi. I don't dismiss "A Tale of Two Cities" because it got some detail about the French Revolution wrong; if it's going to be dismissed, it's because it's badly written (it isn't though.)

In the case of the stories of creation, what matters first is, does it accurately convey the truth it was meant to convey? not, is it accurate?

This is true of the whole Bible, by the way. Even the bits where some degree of historical factuality is required.

 

[shernren]

And now you do it once again.

You keep mixing my points with science. Stop doing that.

Just because the issue isn't scientific details, does NOT mean that the issue isn't about any detail whatsoever.

You know, it is possible to be historically accurate without being "scientific". I don't know why you have to keep mixing them up, unless it's an intended deception to keep changing the focus and muddy an issue you don't want to address.

Well, to me, you're the one who's mixing science with Scripture. I'm just pointing it out, and you're denying it.

Have you ever read Animal Farm by George Orwell? It is a fascinating satire about a group of pigs who take over a farm. In the novel pigs do extraordinary things: they talk, they hold objects, they even politically manipulate other farm animals!

Suppose I talk to someone who believes that Animal Farm is the absolute truth in all possible matters on which it talks about. And I point out to him that in real life, pigs don't talk, pigs don't hold objects, and pigs certainly don't do politics (although I can think of a few politicians who come close to disproving that ... ). He replies: "If Orwell knew about that, it would have been trivial for him to write Animal Farm in such a way that pigs did none of the things you say they don't do. However, he didn't write it that way. Therefore, you're wrong."

Now if you think about it for a moment, you can scientifically test the hypothesis that pigs talk, or hold objects, or do politics. Therefore, these are scientific hypotheses. We can test them, and find that they aren't true. Therefore, since the other person is using Animal Farm to support scientific hypotheses, he is in effect treating it as a science textbook.

Back to your details. We can scientifically test whether the sun is older than the earth, or whether there was any period of time when the earth as a whole was not rained upon. So these are scientific hypotheses, which have scientific ramifications if true or false. As such, if you use the Bible to support or reject these scientific hypotheses, you are in effect treating it as a science textbook.

As gluadys pointed out, the order of events in Genesis 1 have very excellent explanations. The fact that none of these explanations suits your fancy is really not our problem.

First, these could be covered by "land animals". Second, they are definitely covered by "all the host of them" (2:1).

Covered by 2:1.

Covered by 2:1.

And you still have not answered my question. How would knowing that there was the sun before plants, or that there was rain damage their faith, as you claim?

So when during the Creation Week were each of them formed? And if you don't know, how is it that God didn't put in the details? How would knowing when penguins or emus or algae or black holes were created damage their faith?

 

[HypnoToad]

In light of the last 3 posts, it's obvious you guys are intent on abandoning the OP and just reverting into yet another YEC-bashing thread.

 

[Scotishfury09]

In light of the last 3 posts, it's obvious you guys are intent on abandoning the OP and just reverting into yet another YEC-bashing thread.

Well, Xian, as this is my thread, I feel obligated to moderate it; however, I find that not only are the last 3 posts relevant to the OP they don't necessarily bash YEC. Shernren's might be suspect on a few things, but overall his post was beneficial to the argument.

Gluadys's post explained why it is perfectly reasonable that the plants came before the sun. This was a point you made in regards to the OP. Relevant and not at all bashing anyone in any way.

Artybloke's post is a more broad explanation of the exact same thing gluadys talked about. Relevant and again I don't see any bashing.

Shernren's post is the only one that I could see as being "off topic" but I still find it somewhat relevant to the discussion. I think he brings up a good point. If a penguin is a bird, why is it classified as a land animal? I see this as being in the same category of "plants before sun." The point we are all trying to make is that Genesis can't be taken as scientific fact because the ancient Hebrews didn't take it as scientific fact. We shouldn't either.

 

[shernren]

To make my point more relevant, the only reason you would misuse Biblical details to override scientifically investigable facts would be if you presumed that the Bible, in fact, was authoritative in areas which we normally investigate through science.

As such that would still be mixing science with Scripture, albeit very subtly.

I guess I wrapped it in too much backstory to make the point clear.