What's Your View On Creation?

[CalledOutOne]

So how does theistic evolution explain the fall of man and original sin. That is a fair question, no?

 

[Philonephius]

So how does theistic evolution explain the fall of man and original sin. That is a fair question, no?

Evolution does not explain the fall of man or original sin, as these are theological issues. However, I can offer a few possible explanations as to how the creation account in Genesis fits with the evolutionary timeframe. My favorite (the one that makes the most sense to me) is that Adam and Eve represent mankind. In Hebrew, the meaning of the name Adam is man. At some point during the evolution of Homo sapiens, God decided that due to our ability to reason, it was necessary to set certain moral boundaries. Furthermore, He desired a relationship with mankind. Thus, mankind was instilled with God's image, likeness, and the ability to worship.

In this scenario, the fall would represent man's self-serving, disobedient nature. The fall occurred when mankind, now aware of God's law, chose to pursue the desires of their flesh over the will of God.

In other words, the first couple chapters of Genesis are figurative. Most Christians, including yourself, believe it is figurative at least in part...that is, unless you believe Satan is literally a snake roaming somewhere in the world today with a crushed head?

The problem with the idea that mankind originated from two people around 6,000 years ago is that there'd be very low genetic variability observed today, which is not the case. Believe me...we'd be able to tell if mankind originated from only two people. We'd probably be on the verge of extinction, much like the Cheetahs. Or we'd have died off a long time ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity#Coping_with_poor_genetic_diversity

 

[CalledOutOne]

Evolution does not explain the fall of man or original sin, as these are theological issues. However, I can offer a few possible explanations as to how the creation account in Genesis fits with the evolutionary timeframe. My favorite (the one that makes the most sense to me) is that Adam and Eve represent mankind. In Hebrew, the meaning of the name Adam is man. At some point during the evolution of Homo sapiens, God decided that due to our ability to reason, it was necessary to set certain moral boundaries. Furthermore, He desired a relationship with mankind. Thus, mankind was instilled with God's image, likeness, and the ability to worship.

In this scenario, the fall would represent man's self-serving, disobedient nature. The fall occurred when mankind, now aware of God's law, chose to pursue the desires of their flesh over the will of God.

In other words, the first couple chapters of Genesis are figurative. Most Christians, including yourself, believe it is figurative at least in part...that is, unless you believe Satan is literally a snake roaming somewhere in the world today with a crushed head?

The problem with the idea that mankind originated from two people around 6,000 years ago is that there'd be very low genetic variability observed today, which is not the case. Believe me...we'd be able to tell if mankind originated from only two people. We'd probably be on the verge of extinction, much like the Cheetahs. Or we'd have died off a long time ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity#Coping_with_poor_genetic_diversity

I mean no offense, but I can't believe what you're saying. Forgive me if I seem to be going Luther on you, but my conscience is held captive to God's Word and I can't believe anything that the Bible doesn't say outright.

I see what you're saying. I see how you can defend it. I just have to disagree.

 

[ALoveDivine]

I take a different view, I DO believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Yes, humanity as we know it came from two particular individuals. I believe humanity is not distinct by genetics of physiology as much as by the fact that we have a spiritual nature. God breathed a spirit into Adam and Eve, distinguishing them from all the rest of the animal kingdom. Their bodies were likely brought about by evolutionary processes. I think "from the dust of the ground" is a figure of speech, related to the other key phrase, "let the earth bring forth". Our bodies are from the earth, but we are made in the image of God, we are spiritual beings in physical bodies.

About the fall. I believe the bible. Adam and Eve defied God and followed Satan, the serpent, who promised them wisdom. As a result they spiritually died. Remember God said that "the day you eat of it you shall surely die." Adam didn't physically die that day, he lived for like 900 years, so the context here is spiritual death. And then of course they were kicked out of the garden, which was a particular place on Earth, somewhere in the middle east or east Africa, that was essentially paradise. Oh, and I think Adam and Eve likely lived anywhere from 50-100 thousand years ago. Whether the tree and fruit were literal or figurative I honestly don't know, but we should keep in mind that "trees" and "fruit" are used figuratively all throughout scripture, e.g. "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit".

Here's how I see original sin. When Adam and Eve sinned they forsook fellowship with God. They chose to chase wisdom, trying to become God's themselves, and as a result of this sin and as a consequence of God's perfect holiness, the fellowship was broken. God is the source of all good; so every human being born from the seed of Adam is by default not in fellowship with God, meaning that there is no good in any natural man. It is only by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and repentance toward him, that any man is reconciled to God and given spiritual life.

 

[LuxMundi]

I hold to Theistic evolution.

Some good reading material:

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John Walton

Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose? by Denis Alexander

 

[DeaconDean]

I had walked away from this thread because of the condemnation directed at me because my viewpoint that "how long" it took to bring the creation into existance wasn't as important as "who did it to begin with".

If you hated me for that, your really gonna hate me for this.

Dislaimer: The views expressed herein are not mine, I do not support them, only offer them for informational purposes only.

Pseudepigrapha are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded; a work, simply, "whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past." The word "pseudepigrapha" (from the Greek: ψευδής, pseudēs,"lying" or "false" and ἐπιγραφή, epigraphē, "name" or "inscription" or "ascription"; thus when taken together it means "false superscription or title"; see the related epigraphy) is the plural of "pseudepigraphon" (sometimes Latinized as "pseudepigraphum"); the Anglicized forms "pseudepigraph" and "pseudepigraphs" are also used.

Pseudepigraph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the pseudepigraphical book "The Life of Adam and Eve", we learn that prior to the creation of Eve, God sent all of the creation to pass before Adam to be named. This view is supported by Genesis 2:19-20.

Now the only reason why I bring this up is because in the book "The Life of Adam and Eve", it is suggested that it took Adam perhaps as long as 1500 years to name everything God created. And this happened before Eve was created.

Now we really don't know how long Adam and Eve lived in the garden before they were expelled.

Here is where it gets tricky.

Lets just suppose that Adam did take 1500 years to name everything. Then Eve was created. There is a long period of time before Eve caused Adam to transgress. And because of the transgression, they were expelled from the garden.

One thing we do know for sure, Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years after he was expelled from the garden.

Credence at the very least should be given in that death, physical ending of the body, came into the world through Adam's sin upon every man, woman, and child as a result.

It is at least possible, that Adam was the oldest living man ever. He could have lived some 1500 plus years longer than Methuselah.

1500 years to name everything from creation, plus "X" amount of years in the garden prior to expulsion, plus 930 years after expulsion.

Let me make this perfectly clear, I do not support this theory. I only add this for the sake of "food for thought".

I do not say that one should support any of the pseudepigraph, only that one should read them for informational purposes only.

All this would lead one to support the Old Earth theory.

I don't, I take a neutral position. And maintain what I said previously:

The main focus in the Genesis creation account isn't so much about how long it took, 6 literal 24 hour days, or 6000 year-days, or even perhaps 6 billions years, the main focus for isn't on long it took, but who did it to begin with.

If YEC is your thing, fine, God bless you.

If OEC is your thing, fine, God bless you.

Time is not important to me, just the "Who did it to begin with".

To me personally, it does not bother me to know that it took six milli seconds, or six minutes, six hours, six days, six weeks, six months, six years, six thousand years, or even six million years, that don't concern me in the least. That theological question and debate is way down on my list of priorities. One day I'll stand in front of my Lord, and I can ask, or perhaps I can ask that question around the Lord's supper in heaven. Perhaps I'll casually ask, by the way Lord, how long did take to create the world?

Creationalism is way, way down on my list of things to debate.

I'd rather spend my time learning to be more like my Lord.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Philonephius]

The problem with the above theory (I know it is not your belief, but I'll offer my feedback anyway) is that it wouldn't make the Earth that much older than what is claimed by most YECs. Let's say Adam and Eve spent an improbable 12,500 years in the Garden of Eden. If this is true, and it took Adam 1,500 years to name everything God created, the Earth would be only 20,000 years old.

Even if we disregard carbon 14 dating, there are various other methods that reveal the Earth to be at least several million years old.

 

[DeaconDean]

The problem with the above theory (I know it is not your belief, but I'll offer my feedback anyway) is that it wouldn't make the Earth that much older than what is claimed by most YECs. Let's say Adam and Eve spent an improbable 12,500 years in the Garden of Eden. If this is true, and it took Adam 1,500 years to name everything God created, the Earth would be only 20,000 years old.

Even if we disregard carbon 14 dating, there are various other methods that reveal the Earth to be at least several million years old.

Quite true.

And I'm not arguing against you.

None of what I have presented takes away from my firm conviction that the scriptures are the "inerrant, inspired, infallible" word of God.

But it does provide the argument that the earth is older than the current 13,000 years presupposed by the advocates of YEC.

And here again, I was not offering my previous post as an alternative, rather, just something to make one stop and go Hum...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Hamlet, Scene V

As I said before, I take the neutral stamce.

But I am also reading the possibilites of the "Gap Theory".

Which does provide some very good explanations for various things.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What's your view on Creation?

I voted "unsure", but I am a Creationist, just not sure about the age of the earth. I have YEC leanings, but I do not have the desire to debate other Creationists, because the bottom line is both YEC and OEC acknowledge that God was directly involved in creation, and that Adam is a historical figure, which is most important.

 

[Rothen]

I voted "unsure", but I am a Creationist, just not sure about the age of the earth.

The earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old.

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

There's still people in 2012 who believe in genesis?

the obscurantist thought police is still working strong methinks.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old.

Depends on which scientist you ask, the answer varies, and has been revised numerous times throughout the history of Scientific research. At any rate, perhaps you missed the Semper Reformanda forum rules:

"Semper Reformanda - Reformed - a forum for all Reformed, Calvinist, Presbyterian and similar Christians to discuss and fellowship.

A few things to know about us:

1. We hold to the 5 solas: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo and Soli Deo Gloria.
2. We hold to the 5 points of Calvinism: Total depravity, Unconditonal election, Limited atonement ; Irresistible grace and Perservance of the Saints.

3. We recognize the sovereign grace of God, and that it is God who changes the hearts of the rebellious to willing obedience.
To learn more about what we believe please see CRTA or Sola Scriptura

House Rules-
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic." - http://www.christianforums.com/t7396175/

If I wanted to discuss the issue of the age of the earth with non-believers, I would post in a different section of the forum. Thank you for respecting our wishes.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

There's still people in 2012 who believe in genesis?

You are actually in a minority with that view, not just in 2012, but the history of the Church. At any rate, you should already know the...

House Rules-
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic." - http://www.christianforums.com/t7396175/

I do not post dissenting comments in the Catholic section, please afford the same courtesy here, thank you.

 

[Philonephius]

Depends on which scientist you ask,

Depends? Well, I suppose that is true to a certain extent. Statistically speaking, if you ask a Ph.D engineer about their view on creation, you have a 5% chance of them believing in YEC. But if you ask a scientist of a relevant field (e.g. geology), there is virtually zero chance they are a young earth creationist.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Depends? Well, I suppose that is true to a certain extent. Statistically speaking, if you ask a Ph.D engineer about their view on creation, you have a 5% chance of them believing in YEC. But if you ask a scientist of a relevant field (e.g. geology), there is virtually zero chance they are a young earth creationist.

Could that be because statistically speaking by the number there are far fewer Bible believing Christians involved in the various fields of Science, and even fewer considered authoritative among their peers?

One of the problems for Christians whom are involved in the various fields of Science, if disagreement arises, are almost instantly discredited by non-Christian Scientists, regardless of whatever facts of Science are put forth.

Case in point, there are many Bible believing Scientists involved with the "Answers in Genesis" ministry. Regardless of whatever facts of Science they put forth, for those whom disagree (especially non-believers), they are almost instantly discredited without even consideration a great deal of the time.

To address the "5% chance", a couple of points. 1.) just because one is in a majority, does not mean the majority is right, or the person in the majority is right. 2.) Scientists are not without worldviews, and to assume they are neutral concerning the interpreted facts (or that money and power never have influence) would be to forget the "T" of TULIP and all that it entails.

 

[Philonephius]

Could that be because statistically speaking by the number there are far fewer Bible believing Christians involved in the various fields of Science, and even fewer considered authoritative among their peers?

If you needed a surgery, and had the choice between an excellent atheist physician and a mediocre Christian physician, which would you choose? Faith has nothing to do with one's ability to perform their job honestly. Setting aside the fact that the majority of natural scientists in the US believe in God (according to numerous surveys), the reason the vast majority of the scientific community accepts that the Earth is old is because it is supported by overwhelming evidence: carbon 14 dating, coral reefs, tree rings, and ancient tidal flats, just to name a few.

Case in point, there are many Bible believing Scientists involved with the "Answers in Genesis" ministry. Regardless of whatever facts of Science they put forth, for those whom disagree (especially non-believers), they are almost instantly discredited without even consideration a great deal of the time.

Thus far, I have been unable to verify the credentials of any "scientists" at AiG. I've read several of their articles and watched numerous videos. While well-meaning, most of the time they have no clue what they're talking about.