What came first?

If you are a TE, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see evolution as factual, and therefore the Bible needed to reflect that? Or did you see a non-literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore evolution may be true?


If you are a creationist, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see a young earth in the evidence, therefore the Bible must reflect that? Or did you see a literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore young earth must be true?

AIH wrote:

Or did you see a non-literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore evolution may be true?

Click to expand...

THis option. I was learned that hermeneutically, there were many metaphorical parts of the different Bibles, including the flat earth and geocentric cosmology, and so on. It was only after learnging the massively overwhelming evidence for evolution that I saw how well it fit. It was also only after this that I saw how creationism is destroying Christianity.

Papias

AnswersInHovind said:

If you are a TE, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see evolution as factual, and therefore the Bible needed to reflect that? Or did you see a non-literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore evolution may be true?


If you are a creationist, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see a young earth in the evidence, therefore the Bible must reflect that? Or did you see a literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore young earth must be true?

Click to expand...

For me the possibility of a non-literal interpretation of Genesis came first and I credit C.S. Lewis with that. He mentioned the idea of "true myth" in Mere Christianity. One of his ideas is that the existence of many pagan resurrection myths is a reflection in thought of the reality of Christ, but while in pagan thought they never got out of the realm of myth, in Christ the myth became historical. Another is that some of the Hebrew stories are myth (in terms of literary genre) but in contrast to similar pagan stories they are true myths. i.e. they tell us truth about God and ourselves rather than the false concepts of gods in contemporaneous pagan myths.

To me that made a great deal of sense out of the creation stories well before I was even aware that evolution was controversial.

As for evolution, I took to it like a duck to water the first time I read a simple scientific explanation. The discovery of the massive amount of evidence came later. It was the simplicity and elegance of the theory that captured me from the beginning. It never occurred to me then, or at any time since, that evolution was anti-theist or anti-Christian. In fact, I see God as more intimately involved with evolution than with an all-at-once fiat creation---which leads, it seems to me, to Deism--the absentee God and to mechanistic and dualist views of nature which seem far more unbiblical than evolution.

Also telling was that the science properly explained showed up the creationist literature I had come across as shallow and misleading.

AnswersInHovind said:

If you are a TE, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see evolution as factual, and therefore the Bible needed to reflect that? Or did you see a non-literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore evolution may be true?


If you are a creationist, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see a young earth in the evidence, therefore the Bible must reflect that? Or did you see a literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore young earth must be true?

Click to expand...

Don't really know what the popular word is now to describe what I believe.

I do not believe the Earth young. Do not know how old it is. Millions if not billions of years old.

I read the Bible with this question foremost in my mind. Also with an attitude that there are going to be many things I read that does not make sense based on the very small amount of knowledge that a person can have.

The question I keep foremost is "What did God have in mind when He created the universe, earth, man, etc.

What was His Plan?

What was His Purpose?

How did He Pursue those plans and purposes.

When the scripture is read in that light, it helped me keep what man thinks was the plan or purpose separate from what scripture might say, therefore as study matures the issues that are critical are more easily seen. Such as the issue that occurred when Adam fell. That issue being of such a catastrophic and horrible consequence that the death of Jesus was demanded to "fix it".

I learned that God is a very purposeful being. There is a purpose for everything He does or says and whatever He says is true and comes to past.

Before the foundation of the world when He planned his creation, He set in order events as they would happen. A very brief summary of some of those events follow;

He created angels first in different ranks and positions. Angels watched as God created the heavens and the earth.

A Time was given to the angels to make the choice as to follow Him or not, as they were given wills or the ability to choose.

It is not specified that I have found yet how long that took. We know that Lucifer rebelled and convinced a third of the angels and others to rebel with him.

Then when the time was right and it pleased Him, He prepared earth and created man, knowing man was going to fall and need redemption.

In God's creating He created man in such a manner that man would be redeemable whereas Lucifer and other fallen angels were not.

So without continuing, it will suffice to say that what i believe about any subject is based on what i have understood creation to be about and what I understand to this point what God's Plans and Purposes are regarding His creation and where it is going and how it will be.

I know many, if not most, may be even all, will disagree and that is ok.

One thing is for sure.

None of us know that much. We are all striving to understand and know.

AnswersInHovind said:

If you are a TE, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see evolution as factual, and therefore the Bible needed to reflect that? Or did you see a non-literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore evolution may be true?


If you are a creationist, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see a young earth in the evidence, therefore the Bible must reflect that? Or did you see a literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore young earth must be true?

Click to expand...

The interpretation of Genesis, then looking at the evidence. The age of the earth was never a factor.

I don't know which came first strictly. For as long as I have been old enough to engage in critical thinking, Genesis 1-11 has never made sense to me as a literal historically accurate text. Nor, have I found any reason to disbelieve the major scientific theories. The more I read the Genesis account the more obvious it becomes that it was never intended to be read literally, and indeed cannot be read literally without contradicting itself. The more I hear of scientific evidence for and against evolutionism and YECism, the more obvious it is to me that the scientific record tends to support the former and clearly contradicts the latter.

More people on CF Origins Christmas Eve/Day that I expected

AnswersInHovind said:

If you are a TE, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see evolution as factual, and therefore the Bible needed to reflect that? Or did you see a non-literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore evolution may be true?


If you are a creationist, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see a young earth in the evidence, therefore the Bible must reflect that? Or did you see a literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore young earth must be true?

Click to expand...

Because I KNOW evolution does not work (it has certain functions, but not enough). Then there is no other choice, but creation.

juvenissun said:

Because I KNOW evolution does not work (it has certain functions, but not enough). Then there is no other choice, but creation.

Click to expand...

I would like to say "HAYMAN" to this comment.

Also, I am a biblical creationist. I recently announced my call to preach on November 28. 2010. Preached my first sermon on December 5th, 2010. As I study the word of GOD, I and other sciences, I acknowledge that the the Earth is young, by a literal account of GENESIS. I look at the cosmos and see its majesty, and it boggles my mind to believe that GOD just let it explode by a BANG. His power is shown in its beauty and vastness. Also, I do not really know why people try to disprove Creation by science, and Evolution by science also. We are trying to prove the origins of the world by science ( the fallible knowledge of man of imperfectness ) to prove something that an all-knowing, all-powerful GOD has done. What makes mans knowledge reliable? Because science has been reliable on other forms of science in different areas? That is like the fallacy of the majority while making a(n) hasty generalization. Because science has been proven reliable before it has to be reliable upon this certain situation. That is a fallacious statement, but as a known fact how about we rely what GOD said in His word and not "TRY" to sound smart from reading science of other scientists and use there words to make us look smart.

For me I didn't realise for a while that there was a problem with science and a literal understanding of Creation. Then I read a book 'disproving' evolution which caused me to be very against evolution for a while and I wondered why our Christian biology teacher was happy to teach it.

Then I was shown the evidence for evolution and the transitional fossils and I realised I trusted science more than the faulty interpretation of man.

After that I looked to see if Genesis 1-3 could be made sense of in light of this and I slowly moved from thinking Genesis 1-3 was physically true but in less than obvious way, to God specially intervening in evolution to help it along, to TE with God perhaps guiding evolution and Genesis 1-3 being metaphorical and a meaningful myth.

WingsOfEagles07 said:

but as a known fact how about we rely what GOD said in His word and not "TRY" to sound smart from reading science of other scientists and use there words to make us look smart.

Click to expand...

Its not about trying to sound smart by using scientific words any more than you are trying to sound religious by saying what you are saying (assuming that isn't your reason). The same could be said of trying to sound smart by using theological concepts and words.... such as Trinity and Penal Subsitution.

As a younger Christian I was an enthusiastic young earth creationist, but gradually, I kept finding that creationist arguments did not hold up, their arguments against radiometric dating simply did not match how radiometric dating was actually done, the sinking feeling reading books on finding Noah's Ark that end up with no Ark being found, or videos about human footprints found alongside dino prints that turn out to be vague elongated hollows. Of course I saw flaws in evolutionist arguments too, no new fossil discovery came without wild speculation about how that particular feature might have evolved. But it seemed to me the scientific speculation was in areas that weren't important, while creationism made its wild leaps at the very heart of its argument. So for years my position was agnostic, a creationist at heart who didn't trust creationism and felt the wool being pulled over my eyes every time I saw an article on the subject, I contented himself that God knew, and man could not really know what happened in the past.

Until I came across a creationist preaching the British church needed to repent of the 'idolatry of Evolution'. It was ugly and legalistic but I knew I could not remain neutral on the subject anymore. So I did something I had not done in years, something I had avoided, I went back a reread Genesis 1 to see what it actually said. It was scary, I did not know what I would do if it confirmed a six day creationism, because the creationism I had seen was not only unreliable, it was ugly, and so unlike Jesus I knew and loved.

Yet as I read Genesis 1, as if for the first time, I was amazed at what it said. there was no mention of the world being created in 6 days. Instead it seemed to describe great works of creation each ending with a numbered day, but not the slightest hint that the six days in the account all came after one another. The more I looked the more the text confirmed that. Days in the OT all began in the evening, that is when the Jewish Sabbaths all start. Yet the first great work of creation all took place before the evening of the first day in verse 5. It wasn't created on 'the first day' but before it, and there was simply no limit to how long it could have taken. It was the same with all of the other days. There was simply no contradiction between Genesis and the longs ages of geological time. It was a real shock, but I also realised if God took that long I had no real argument against evolution either. That was harder to take but I had to trust that God knew what he was doing. I left it there for a while but I slowly realised, that if God used evolution then it can't really be a problem can it?

Since then as I studied scripture I found there was a wide range of other ways in scripture to read the days of Genesis 1, not just my intermittent day interpretation, but day age interpretations (Psalm 90), a figurative illustration of the Sabbath (Exodus 20 - it can't be literal when the days in Genesis don't fit the Sabbath observation), a framework to describe God's creation all around us today (Psalm 104), or simply a beautiful poetic description of the creation.

juvenissun said:

Because I KNOW evolution does not work (it has certain functions, but not enough). Then there is no other choice, but creation.

Click to expand...

What about Last Thursdayism? Isn't God powerful enough to have made us all last Thursday with an apparent history? Of course, it wouldn't have to be the Christian God, maybe it's something else that we have yet to discover, besides we've only been around for a few days.

philadiddle said:

What about Last Thursdayism? Isn't God powerful enough to have made us all last Thursday with an apparent history? Of course, it wouldn't have to be the Christian God, maybe it's something else that we have yet to discover, besides we've only been around for a few days.

Click to expand...

You serious? lol

WingsOfEagles07 said:

You serious? lol

Click to expand...

Sure why not? GODDIDIT! Your assumptions are what are keeping you from believing it.

AnswersInHovind said:

If you are a TE, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see evolution as factual, and therefore the Bible needed to reflect that? Or did you see a non-literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore evolution may be true?

If you are a creationist, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see a young earth in the evidence, therefore the Bible must reflect that? Or did you see a literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore young earth must be true?

Click to expand...

Neither. I am an Old Earth Creationist, Gap Theory proponent.

Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [KJV]

Replenish means it had a prior state, a state of prior Heavenly judgment, that Adam and Eve would have to rebuild to its prejudgment state, i.e. before Genesis 1:2.

Faith.Man said:

Neither. I am an Old Earth Creationist, Gap Theory proponent.

Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [KJV]

Replenish means it had a prior state, a state of prior Heavenly judgment, that Adam and Eve would have to rebuild to its prejudgment state, i.e. before Genesis 1:2.

Click to expand...

I just reviewed the Gap Theory recently. I don't understand it. See if this right:

The theory says: God creates perfect Heavens and Earth (our earth).
GAP --- long time passed.
And then Satan turned the earth into formless and void.

Do I miss anything in the theory?

I have been a Christian my entire life. I was an OEC most my life (since the age of 13 when I was first presented with the term), and became a pretty strict concordist. I loved looking at "evidence" where a scientific truth sprung from some verse.

In my 30's, I began to look at all this more critically. I had begun to study evolution more deeply and it seemed to me that denying it with all its evidence was akin to denying a forest because of the space between the trees. I also understood that my OEC views did not really fit well with the evidence of how the universe had been created. I did not ever hear the term "TE" until my late 30's; but by the time I did, I could immediately see that it described my belief. I was happy to find a label that would lead me to Christians with similar beliefs.

As far as my faith, I would say that before TE I was an "ignorant Christian". I knew the bible OK, I believed, I attended, I worshiped, I did service - but there were nagging doubts in me that kept me from committing 100%. Accepting TE has been a boon to my faith - I believe more strongly and completely than I ever did before. I study the bible with a vigor that I did not as a younger man. This is exactly the opposite of what the typical creationist will tell you what should happen when you accept evolutionary theory; but it is my story. This is probably why I feel the need to evangelize TE somewhat, I hope that I can help someone else in the same situation keep their faith rather than falling away when the auspices of traditional creationism fall away.

juvenissun said:

I just reviewed the Gap Theory recently. I don't understand it. See if this right:

The theory says: God creates perfect Heavens and Earth (our earth).
GAP --- long time passed.
And then Satan turned the earth into formless and void.

Do I miss anything in the theory?

Click to expand...

Yes quite a bit. The links below are good places to start ... but it is only a starting point. You might also look at threads in the Creationism Sub-Forum and threads on the Book of Enoch.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7511823/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7514274/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7515353/

Also, Satan did not turn the Earth formless and void.

AnswersInHovind said:

If you are a TE, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see evolution as factual, and therefore the Bible needed to reflect that? Or did you see a non-literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore evolution may be true?

Click to expand...

I have never had a reason to doubt evolutionary theory. So for me, it is the first of your two options. However, even examining Genesis without any regard to science will leave you with a lot of unanswered questions. Adding reality into the mix is just icing on the cake.

WingsOfEagles07 said:

We are trying to prove the origins of the world by science ( the fallible knowledge of man of imperfectness ) to prove something that an all-knowing, all-powerful GOD has done. What makes mans knowledge reliable? Because science has been reliable on other forms of science in different areas?

Click to expand...

If you start rejecting empiricism, then you will eventually wind up with solipsism. Such is the path of philosophical skepticism. Our empirical knowledge is reliable because it can be repeatedly tested. Over, and over, and over again will give us the exact same results every single time.

That is like the fallacy of the majority while making a(n) hasty generalization. Because science has been proven reliable before it has to be reliable upon this certain situation. That is a fallacious statement,

Click to expand...

No, it isn't a fallacy. By now, you should know how the evidence for evolution and an old earth works. There are numerous lines of independent pieces of evidence that all point towards an old earth and away from YECism:
-Tree rings
-Rock strata
-Distances between stars
-Radiometric dating
-Redshift and blueshift
-Cosmic background radiation
-Fossil record

The list goes on and on. All of the above are completely separate pieces of evidences, each with their own way of telling us the age of the universe. Funny thing is, they all agree with each other. Every independent dating method arrives at the same numbers. Every independent piece of evidence builds on and corroborates the others.

WingsOfEagles07 said:

You serious? lol

Click to expand...

Last Thursdayism is the Omphalos Hypothesis taken to its ultimate logical end. If God is creating a young universe with the appearance of age, it's no stretch at all to believe that God/a deity created all of us and all our memories last Thursday.

Faith.Man said:

Yes quite a bit. The links below are good places to start ... but it is only a starting point. You might also look at threads in the Creationism Sub-Forum and threads on the Book of Enoch.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7511823/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7514274/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7515353/

Also, Satan did not turn the Earth formless and void.

Click to expand...

You pointed to me threads, which is not something to the point.

If so, then what the formless and void are about? Is there a gap between the "... Heaven and earth" and "The earth is ..."? What happened during the gap? An answer of (partial) short list will be perfect.