Was Moses a Ninny, a Yahoo, or both?

[St. Worm2]

I have always wondered, if any form of macro evolution is true, why the ruse from God?

Basic Darwinism, for example, seems simple enough to explain and comprehend, so if evolution is true, why the big ‘fairy tale’ to the contrary? Was Moses so far down on the evolutionary ladder that even the most fundamental of explanations would have too much for his mustard seed sized brain?

Or, if not, perhaps this 'story' wasn't about "Creation" at all? Perhaps it was God simply looking for a handy way to explain our races' universal corruption? But if this is true, why go to all the trouble of the fairy tale? Why not give a simple explanation of the "true" origins of life (IOW, evolution) and then just explain that as living things became more and more complex, they also became corrupt, or something along those lines? Why would God go so far as to talk about plants and animals reproducing "after their own kind" and do His best to explain away any sense of macro evolutionary advancement if it is indeed, true?

I have a number of other similar questions, but I'll stop and wait for these to be answered. If they have already been answered, and you don't want to waste time answering them again, I understand, but it would be great if you could give me a link to them!

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You're working from a particular view of Biblical interpretation - that God, for all intents and purposes, sat down with Moses and said "OK, this is what happened - write this down, there may be a short quiz at the end of the period."

This is not how most Christians IME see it.

Rather, I would suggest (and we'll work within the traditional context of Mosaic authorship here because although I don't think it holds water it's not the issue) that the creation stories we have, in some form, predate the writing of Genesis as Scripture. These were versions of the common middle eastern creation myth.

What happened was that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Moses wrote Genesis using the cosmology he had, but put a new twist on it. The created things are no longer gods; the creator does not have to struggle against primaeval chaos, but rather speaks and it is.

The reason therefore that the literary vehicle for the creation stories is what it is, then, is that that is the mythological vehicle that was already in existence in the minds of the community out of which the Genesis stories came. The Holy Spirit's part was to take this story and breathe theological truth about God, about creation, and about humanity, into it.

 

[seebs]

Here's one explanation:

How it Happened


My brother began to dictate in his best oratorical style, the one which has the tribes hanging on his words.

"In the beginning," he said, "exactly fifteen point two billion years ago, there was a big bang and the Universe--"

But I had stopped writing. "Fifteen billion years ago?" I said incredulously.

"Absolutely," he said. "I'm inspired."

"I don't question your inspiration," I said. (I had better not. He's three years younger than I am, but I don't try questioning his inspiration. Neither does anyone else or there's hell to pay.) "But are you going to tell the story of the Creation over a period of fifteen billion years?"

"I have to," said my brother. "That's how long it took. I have it all in here," he tapped his forehead, "and it's on the very highest authority."

By now I had put down my stylus. "Do you know the price of papyrus?" I said.

"What?" (He may be inspired but I frequently noticed that the inspiration didn't include such sordid matters as the price of papyrus.)

I said, "Suppose you describe one million years of events to each roll of papyrus. That means you'll have to fill fifteen thousand rolls. You'll have to talk long enough to fill them and you know that you begin to stammer after a while. I'll have to write enough to fill them and my fingers will fall off. And even if we can afford all that papyrus and you have the voice and I have the strength, who's going to copy it? We've got to have a guarantee of a hundred copies before we can publish and without that where will we get royalties from?"

My brother thought awhile. He said, "You think I ought to cut it down?"

"Way down," I said, "if you expect to reach the public."

"How about a hundred years?" he said.

"How about six days?" I said.

He said horrified, "You can't squeeze Creation into six days."

I said, "This is all the papyrus I have. What do you think?"

"Oh, well," he said, and began to dictate again, "In the beginning-- Does it have to be six days, Aaron?"

I said, firmly, "Six days, Moses."

 

[herev]

Here's one explanation:

, now that's funny, but...
you might get hit hard for that one, watch out!

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I'll bet I could explain it in as short a space as Genesis has. Besides, God has the greatest mind so He would be able to word it best. God also works in the minds of those who have His indwelling Spirit, so He can also aid in their understanding of it.

 

[Vance]

If Genesis 1 and 2 was meant by God to be given as an historical account of what actually happened, then the question may be valid. If, instead, to be a powerful poetic and metaphorical telling which provides us with all we need to know as a foundation for God's ultimate Message in Scripture (God created everything and is in charge of everything, Man created for a special relationship with Him, Man's Fallen nature and need for redemption, God's providing the redemptive gift of His Son for our salvation), then it does its job in spades!!! And adds in some additional extremely important messages directly from God as well (the nature of temptation, etc, etc).

If I was writing for this purpose, I could not think of a better way of doing it than using a form and type of story that the peoples of the world were familiar with.

 

[lucaspa]

I'll bet I could explain it in as short a space as Genesis has. Besides, God has the greatest mind so He would be able to word it best. God also works in the minds of those who have His indwelling Spirit, so He can also aid in their understanding of it.

But not if the language doesn't have the words. The Bible doesn't come with a Glossary of new terms. It uses the Hebrew language as it was at the time. And the Bible is written also for those who do not have the Spirit, in order to guide them to the Spirit. So, if the Bible can only be interpreted and read by those already with the Spirit, then it is useless for one of its major functions.

While God is very powerful, the humans were limited. God is forced, all the way thru the Bible, to limit Himself to the languages and concepts humans have.

Which is why the real story of how God created is in His Creation. God can just wait until we are smart enough to read that book for ourselves.

 

[lucaspa]

I have always wondered, if any form of macro evolution is true, why the ruse from God?

Simple. It's not a ruse and macroevolution is true.

There was no "fairy tale to the contrary". Instead, there are stubborn people, both theist and atheist, who refuse to remember who Genesis 1-3 was written for and insiste on taking it out of its time and place and making it something it isn't.

Perhaps it was God simply looking for a handy way to explain our races' universal corruption? But if this is true, why go to all the trouble of the fairy tale? Why not give a simple explanation of the "true" origins of life (IOW, evolution) and then just explain that as living things became more and more complex, they also became corrupt, or something along those lines?

Genesis 2-3 is about why humans are cut off from God.

BTW, which Hebrew word, exactly, means "evolution"? Which Hebrew word would you use to say "protocells" or "amino acid"? Look all the way thru the OT at all the Hebrew words, and tell us which one or ones fit the bill.

David, Karl gave most of the answer: Genesis 1-3 are two theological stories explaining theological truths in ways that were meaningful to the people of the time. They are not a primitive way to explain how God created.

 

[seebs]

Once there was a little girl. She asked her father what he did, and he said that he built houses. She was happy about this, and told all her friends that her father built houses. Being a little girl, she imagined that he must be very strong indeed to build houses; they look quite heavy. When she was older, she found paperwork in his office, describing "subcontracting agreements". According to these agreements, her father organized people, and the people he organized did the physical labor; he might or might not even physically go to a given place where a house was being built, because the people who worked for him were able to take the plans, which he designed, and build a house as he described it. But he paid them, and when the work was done, the house was his to sell.

There are two questions here:
1. Would you describe his explanation that he "builds houses" as a lie, or a ruse?
2. Given the context in which I told this story, do you think it matters whether or not the little girl described actually lived and had these experiences?

 

[herev]

Once there was a little girl. She asked her father what he did, and he said that he built houses. She was happy about this, and told all her friends that her father built houses. Being a little girl, she imagined that he must be very strong indeed to build houses; they look quite heavy. When she was older, she found paperwork in his office, describing "subcontracting agreements". According to these agreements, her father organized people, and the people he organized did the physical labor; he might or might not even physically go to a given place where a house was being built, because the people who worked for him were able to take the plans, which he designed, and build a house as he described it. But he paid them, and when the work was done, the house was his to sell.

There are two questions here:
1. Would you describe his explanation that he "builds houses" as a lie, or a ruse?
2. Given the context in which I told this story, do you think it matters whether or not the little girl described actually lived and had these experiences?

as always seebs,