Views on Creation.

[tedwardpowell]

Something that has always interested me.

Are you a fundamentalist who follows Genisis word for word, or more conservative and believe in evolution? Or perhaps something other?

 

[Seriyan]

I don't know if "evolution" and "conservative" are two words that associate often in my mind.

 

[MasterpieceMesias]

undecided, tbh

 

[tedwardpowell]

I don't know if "evolution" and "conservative" are two words that associate often in my mind.

That's odd, seeing as there are millions of Conservative Christians that reinterpretate Genisis too accept evolution.

 

[Seriyan]

That's odd, seeing as there are millions of Conservative Christians that reinterpretate Genisis too accept evolution.

That implies that Genesis needs to be reinterpreted in the first place.

 

[avra34v2]

That's odd, seeing as there are millions of Conservative Christians that reinterpretate Genisis too accept evolution.

I think he was just pointing out the fact that it's a bit odd the way you asked because you made it sound as if 'being conservative' and 'believing in evolution' went hand in hand; accepting evolution is not considered the 'conservative' view on Genesis/creation (although believing in evolution does not make you NOT conservative at all... it just means you don't hold to the conservative view of Creation).

that being said I accept the age of the Earth to be 4.56 billion... 14 or so billion for the universe... evolution... no global flood... etc, etc....

And yes, I still hold to 100% inerrency, inspiration, and reliability of Scripture.

to be honest the most difficult thing to deal with is what we do with Adam. Like I said, I hold to biblical inerrency, and it is impossible for there not to have been an historical Adam. I still trust what the Bibles says about him, but I don't know how to make sense of it and what science and anthropology teaches. That's the one issue that I don't know exactly what to think about. I still however hold to the view that Adam was an historical person and that Him and Eve were historically tempted and fell in the Garden of Eden.

 

[tedwardpowell]

That implies that Genesis needs to be reinterpreted in the first place.

When are you referring to "the first place being". If "the first place" is when Charles Darwin published his work in 1859 then yes, Genesis does need to reinterpreted in the first place.

itsdeliciouscake-I find it interesting how you and other old earth creationist seem to be able to accept some science yet not other parts on the issue of creation. Clearly you've seen Genesis perhaps dosen't quite work with 6 24hour days, but what makes you believe it still works with the idea of God creating humans from instantly in the form of Adam and Eve?

 

[avra34v2]

When are you referring to "the first place being". If "the first place" is when Charles Darwin published his work in 1859 then yes, Genesis does need to reinterpreted in the first place.

itsdeliciouscake-I find it interesting how you and other old earth creationist seem to be able to accept some science yet not other parts on the issue of creation. Clearly you've seen Genesis perhaps dosen't quite work with 6 24hour days, but what makes you believe it still works with the idea of God creating humans from instantly in the form of Adam and Eve?

like I said, I just don't know what to think when it comes to Adam. It's still something I'm wrestling with and trying to figure out and I'm ok with that. I still hold to biblical inerrency; I still hold to an historical Adam. I just don't know how it fits right now (and I'll never 'know' necessarily until Christ returns, just be able to have informed guesses).

But I don't even think the Bible teaches young earth creationism... One of the very first principles of hermeneutics is that you need to find the authors intention, and I don't think the author intended Genesis 1 to be read as a wooden literal account of creation... The reason I say this is because if the author DID write Genesis to say that God literally created the Earth in 6 days then the author contradicts himself. I'm going to ASSUME that the author is smart enough not to make very basic errors so as to contradicts himself minutes in the very same passage. Golden rule of reading 'read others as you would have others read you.' If I write something that has an apparent contradiction I would HOPE that whoever reads it doesn't just immediately write me off, but instead that he would try and figure out what I actually meant.

and here Tim Keller says it better than I can...

Perhaps the strongest argument for the view that the author of Genesis 1 did not want to be taken literally
is a comparison of the order of creative acts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 shows us an order of
creation that does not follow a 'natural order' at all. For example, there is light (Day 1) before there are any
sources of light--the sun, moon, and stars (Day 4). There is vegetation (Day 3) before there was any
atmosphere (Day 4 when the sun was made) and therefore there was vegetation before rain was possible.
Of course, this is not a problem per se for an omnipotent God. But Genesis 2:5 says: “When the Lord God
made the earth and heavens--and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the
field had yet sprung up, because the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to work
the ground." Although God did not have to follow what we would call a ‘natural order’ in creation, Genesis
2:5 teaches that he did. It is stated categorically: God did not put vegetation on the earth before there was
an atmosphere and rain. But in Genesis 1 we do have vegetation before there is any rain possible or any
man to till the earth. In Genesis 1 natural order means nothing--there are three 'evenings and mornings'
before there is a sun to set! But in Genesis 2 natural order is the norm.
8

The conclusion—we may read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2 but not in Genesis 1, or
(much, much more unlikely) we may read them as literal in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2. But in any case,
you can’t read them both as straightforward accounts of historical events. Indeed, if they are both to be
read literalistically, why would the author have combined the accounts, since they are (on that reading)
incompatible? The best answer is that we are not supposed to understand them that way. In Exodus 14-15
(the Red Sea crossing) and Judges 4-5 (Israel’s defeat of Syria under Sisera) there is an historical account
joined to a more poetical ‘song’ that proclaims the meaning of the event. Something like that may be what
the author of Genesis has in mind here.

 

[tedwardpowell]

Indeed itsdeliciouscake (Can't help but smile everytime I type that name) your point on the condradicting Genesis 1 is bang on, and what largely caused me to make my mind up on not reading it a fundamentalist fasion. And what a great quote! Been hunting for awhile for a quote to show to friends ect. about Genesis as it is trickey to explain.

On your point about Adam, I agree he is awkward to fit in. After decided Genesis is not to be taken litterally it was almost instinct for me to accept evolution-because of this I believe when evolution (which had been guided by God) came to a point when we were "Human" meaning we were: capable of seeing right and wrong, and intelligent enough to seek God is when Adam and Eve came, perhaps the name given to the first two developed humans, or the first fit ones that carried know dieases. And from then on the bibles got it all...