Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[shernren]

I read your post, here is the problem.... Out of all the translations, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NRSV. The mere fact that all of these translate it almost exactly the same says something. Now you have some explaining as to why each one of these committies of fluently speaking greek translaters would translate it as they did. I have had 2 years of greek myself and I cant find a problem with their translation. I'm gonna say majority rules on this one and you aren't the majority.

Your problem is that you are trying to translate the words individually but you can't do that with greek, context is very important in the greek language. Maybe you should take some greek classes before you decided that you are a translator.

Fine, so do a little greek with me and teach me why arche ktisis can mean in the 6th day of creation when that is neither the beginning of creation or the beginning of God's creative act. I'm willing to learn, you know. Since you have 2 years of greek go on and show me yourself instead of hand-waving to the authority of Bible translators. They're fallible men, too.

(Btw, the consensus of fallible men is exactly the same reason why we accept science.)

You still can't see outside of your little scientific bubble can you? Are you seriously saying that God could not have made them inhabitable just as easily as he made the earth habitable?

Actually, yes. The earth is inhabitable precisely because it is in the very narrow "Goldilocks zone" where it neither freezes over nor boils off. The sun itself is also precisely tuned for mankind's survival, emitting light in very precise frequencies. If the sun was any younger it would be too hot for human survival, if the sun was any older it would be too cold and could have swollen until the "Goldilocks zone" was within the sun itself. Now you can go on and throw science out of the window, but remember that maya philosophy is a Hindu/Buddhist invention and tosses two millenia of illustrious Christian science and philosophy to the wind. Solipsism is as far from Christianity as one can get, philosophically speaking. At least atheists acknowledge that the world is real, and that what we observe of something can actually tell us useful information about it.

My preacher would laugh if he knew this was aimed at me. You have no idea how much I have questioned scripture, God, science or anything else. I told you, I once was a TE. However, my studies veried more and more to scripture. The more I studied scripture, the more I realized that there was no getting around it. Throughout the entire thing, Adam is spoken of as if he was a real person.

Well, you have no idea how much I have questioned TEism and my own sanity many times. It is precisely because Adam is spoken of as if he was a real person, that I believe he actually was/is a real person. And I'm not talking mythical/figurative here - real flesh and bones, calcium jaws crunching down on the fruit of the tree of knowledge Adam. It is not as if I have been a TE from birth, or am a TE because I'm compelled to believe it by the science. It is the simple question of "which theory of the origins benefits my faith the best?" YECism does nothing for my Christian beliefs, faith, and lifestyle. So too bad.

Your challenge of my and others translations is based off of your belief in the evolutionary theory. They are swayed and biased. If you could read the scripture without your evolutionary colored glasses you would come to the same conclusion as everyone else that reads it, Hebrew, Greek, aetheist, Christian, agnostic, alike. The only group in the world that sees any harmony between evolution and christianity is the TE's. In essence, you are a cult, much like Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and the like. I'm not saying you're not saved by God's grace, but I am saying that you have a belief that is your own that no one outside of your group sees.

What a colorful insult. That's like saying "The only group in the world that can believe that God became a man who died and rose from the dead are the Christians." Come on, you tell me why we see harmony between evolution and Christianity. Clearly you left an escape clause for yourself saying that we are saved, but I get the feeling you're not going to grant us any more than that. Mentally you've classified us as half-believing compromising almost-non-Christians who suck up to science like there's no tomorrow. That's, of course, despite the fact that we have presented many credible arguments and refutations about how we can come to believe that the Bible has room for evolution. Nothing will convince you except our "repentance" and recapitulation.

You think we're the narrow-minded ones?

You can see our evolutionary glasses. I have them on when I read Genesis 1, I'll admit, but others on this forum don't and I've read them say that since young - since before they had any experience of evolutionism (inferred) - they were already reading Genesis 1 mythologically. Is it all evolution's fault? And do you see your own glasses - literalist glasses, subjective-theology glasses, maya glasses, post-Enlightenment-rationalist glasses, Western glasses ...

(My, my. Some conflicts I really can't use conflict-resolution language with.)

You're point is worthless. Genesis 1 is obviously the how of creation, anyone that reads it can see that or reads the rest of Genesis can see that. To say the meaning of chapter one is to show the sabbath is important is massively simplictic considering what all is detailed in the chapter.

Wasn't it you yourself who said the point of the whole chapter was about the sabbath? (Or were you being sarcastic? I really couldn't tell.)

Of course there's more than the Sabbath. There's the fundamental idea that God was somehow a "better" Creator than the other gods - whether or not Genesis 1 was original or derivative of other myths, it would end up being compared to other creation myths around the region in which God is portrayed as violent, wantonly cruel, etc. Also, the fact that the sun was created, that the moon was created, that the stars was created, etc. shows their creaturely subjugation to the Creator, and thus that there is no place in His people's covenant to worship them as idols. Then there's sabbath. There's the idea that God created an orderly world (which a lot of YECs don't want to accept), and the idea that the world was created around sustaining man and drawing him closer to God.

As a how, Genesis 1 is a very simplistic and scientifically useless how. Speaking of "the waters above the firmament" makes a lot of sense when one realizes that the ancients saw the sky as a cast, solid, transparent object hanging above their heads, with water above it coloring it. But to make it an interstellar layer of ice? (like Humphreys did in Starlight and Time) ... even you would agree that that's reading a biittt too much into Genesis 1, when there's a far better and more sensible explanation at hand.

If God said he created a mature earth, I don't have to justify his reasoning, I don't have to prove it. All I have to do is accept it.

Why you feel the need to twist God's word to fit into your scientific theories is beyond me.

Don't twist God's word. Did God really say that He created a mature earth? Where? Does the Bible tell us how or where or when He aged the earth? And if not, how come you humans know so much when it seems God didn't see fit to tell us? You say God simply told you that He created the earth 6000 years ago. Why you have to twist that to fit your scientific theories and come up with the idea of a mature earth that scripture nowhere supports or contains is really beyond me.

Why bother with saying "God created a mature earth"? If you really did accept what God said at face level, you should say "God created the earth 6000 years ago and I don't know and I don't care why it looks so old today. Let God be true and all science be bunkum!" I personally believed that for a few weeks before realizing that it did me no good whatsoever, and then became a TE. My mind simply wasn't made for gymnastics.

 

[shernren]

I've read it and it doesn't detail what specifically they did in the garden. However it does say that they were to work it and take care of it (Genesis 2:15), and from the curses God gave, it would seem that they were farmers of the field and animals, else the curses weren't that much of a curse to them. All the hints that are given point to farming.

BTW, gathering and farming is very different. The gatherer would assume that the earth would provide enough for him. If he is/was hungry, he can just simply pick up fruit and start munching. It was not until the Fall that agriculture was necessary for man's sustenance.

 

[stumpjumper]

Great post Shernren

Is there a book that you would recommend or specific reason that makes you believe that Adam and Eve were actual people? I did try to hold on to that one and synthesize it with the Out of Africa model of human origins but I could not find any reason to believe that Adam and Eve were anything but myth. But, I respect your opinion and am curious about how you arrived at your position.

 

[shernren]

Great post Shernren

Is there a book that you would recommend or specific reason that makes you believe that Adam and Eve were actual people? I did try to hold on to that one and synthesize it with the Out of Africa model of human origins but I could not find any reason to believe that Adam and Eve were anything but myth. But, I respect your opinion and am curious about how you arrived at your position.

Well, to be honest, it's just easier to believe. It makes more sense to me. Theoretically, if I really went into the study of hominid evolution and found something that just doesn't jive with Adam, especially when it comes to paleochronology, I would have to spend a few weeks reorienting myself. At the very least I understand the arguments of those who don't believe in a literal Adam and while I don't hold them myself I can understand why they hold them.

In the end, for me, it is down to Christian consensus in essentials, and the most rational beliefs in everything else. Of course I will be flayed alive by the YECs for this comment but it works both ways. The only reason YECs believe YECism is because it is the rational choice for them. It's just that what constitutes a rational choice for them is different from what constitutes a rational choice for me, and what is rational to me is clearly irrational to them and vice-versa, as clearly evidenced on this forum. An anti-scientific belief is very irrational for me - I know God gave me a scientific mind and I've proved it in every personality test I've ever taken - and I'm not ashamed of that.

I do agree that the field of hominid evolution is rather messed up right now. Maybe this is a sign that something very unscientific happened here? Ditto abiogenesis. In the end, however, when one understands what science really is - a predictive, deductive analysis of the natural world - it isn't too hard to reconcile. If there is a rational scientific model for it, then fine - God worked through scientific, cause-effect means. If there is no rational scientific model for it, praise God - it was a miracle!

The important point is that faith does not live in a vacuum. Faith gives birth to actions. The reason origins is a peripheral issue (no matter how much YECs try to blow it up; is it just me or are their organizations far more vocal than TEs'?) is because its effect on our actions is peripheral. I still believe that abortion, divorce and practiced homosexuality are wrong, despite my views on origin - so how different, really, is my faith from the faith of a YEC who has the same opinions? In the end God will not say "Well believed" but "Well done, good and faithful servant". Right faith is only important insofar as it helps us to live right lives.

And of course, insofar as it helps one to be right in debates!

 

[Critias]

Fine, so do a little greek with me and teach me why arche ktisis can mean in the 6th day of creation when that is neither the beginning of creation or the beginning of God's creative act. I'm willing to learn, you know. Since you have 2 years of greek go on and show me yourself instead of hand-waving to the authority of Bible translators. They're fallible men, too.

(Btw, the consensus of fallible men is exactly the same reason why we accept science.)

Within the context of Mark 10:6, it is written as arches ktiseos, which would mean beginning of creation. The endings of these two words show singularity, meaning 1 creation, 1 beginning. Besides creation, ktisis also suggests an act of establishing. This doesn't mean day 3, 5, 1, or 6. Within the context, the reader would understand it to be day 6 because the Genesis account of creating male and female on day six. That is why it is commonly understood as day 6, which is the beginning of creation.

Specifically, this means not the beginning of God creating, but the beginning of creation itself. Different things were created on different days, as written in Genesis, so all 6 days are the beginning of creation.

Maybe that will help you better understand this.

Don't twist God's word. Did God really say that He created a mature earth? Where? Does the Bible tell us how or where or when He aged the earth? And if not, how come you humans know so much when it seems God didn't see fit to tell us? You say God simply told you that He created the earth 6000 years ago. Why you have to twist that to fit your scientific theories and come up with the idea of a mature earth that scripture nowhere supports or contains is really beyond me.

Why bother with saying "God created a mature earth"? If you really did accept what God said at face level, you should say "God created the earth 6000 years ago and I don't know and I don't care why it looks so old today. Let God be true and all science be bunkum!" I personally believed that for a few weeks before realizing that it did me no good whatsoever, and then became a TE. My mind simply wasn't made for gymnastics.

It is implied in Genesis that God created a mature earth. Think about it. Earth created in a matter of days for life to inhabit and be sustained. It would have to be mature in order to sustain life that quickly.

Have you ever watched a garden grow or sapling grow into a fruit giving tree? They take more then a few days to give sustance for animals and man to live off of.

This is a pre-scientific belief that goes back before the first century A.D. So, you can't say it has recently been made up because of current scientific standing.

 

[QuantumFlux]

It does not matter whether Paul could have used the Greek word for mankind or not. IMO, it does not even matter that much if Paul really believed in a literal Adam either because he was far removed from the original authors of Genesis. What does matter is the connection that Paul was attempting to make and the reason he used Adam as a connection. Paul was a preacher for the Gentiles which we all know. Yet, Paul was most definitely basing his view upon Jewish scripture. This should be stated without debate yet I wonder in this forum sometimes if I have to spell everything out.

All this proves is that Paul thought Adam to be a real person and confirmed the Hebrew belief in the physical fall of man. That Adam was the one that started sin and was not created with it. Evolution does not allow for an Adam that did not sin from birth.

Fine, so do a little greek with me and teach me why arche ktisis can mean in the 6th day of creation when that is neither the beginning of creation or the beginning of God's creative act. I'm willing to learn, you know. Since you have 2 years of greek go on and show me yourself instead of hand-waving to the authority of Bible translators. They're fallible men, too.

(Btw, the consensus of fallible men is exactly the same reason why we accept science.)

See critias post, it is not a difficult translation, why you are making it so only shows your stubburnness to make God's word fit your ideas.

These fallible men weren't idiots and they spent alot of time on their translations. Something tells me you didn't spend near as much time as they did. Personally I left my greek translation at home, but if you don't believe critias post then I'll get it out and walk you through it tonight.

Actually, yes. The earth is inhabitable precisely because it is in the very narrow "Goldilocks zone" where it neither freezes over nor boils off. The sun itself is also precisely tuned for mankind's survival, emitting light in very precise frequencies. If the sun was any younger it would be too hot for human survival, if the sun was any older it would be too cold and could have swollen until the "Goldilocks zone" was within the sun itself. Now you can go on and throw science out of the window, but remember that maya philosophy is a Hindu/Buddhist invention and tosses two millenia of illustrious Christian science and philosophy to the wind. Solipsism is as far from Christianity as one can get, philosophically speaking. At least atheists acknowledge that the world is real, and that what we observe of something can actually tell us useful information about it.

I forgot that God couldn't shift the orbit of a planet or change the temperature of another star. Forgive me for not limiting God.

What a colorful insult. That's like saying "The only group in the world that can believe that God became a man who died and rose from the dead are the Christians."

But that isn't questionable, when an aethist or agnostic or anyone else reads the bible that can see that we believe that. Those same people when reading the bible also see all of the contradictions of evolution and biblical teachings, even christians see it. The only people that don't see it are the TE's.

Mentally you've classified us as half-believing compromising almost-non-Christians who suck up to science like there's no tomorrow.

Isn't that what I said?

That's, of course, despite the fact that we have presented many credible arguments and refutations about how we can come to believe that the Bible has room for evolution. Nothing will convince you except our "repentance" and recapitulation.

I'll let your scientific credibility stand (even though i presented my refutations of it just as well), but your arguments and refutations for a biblical allowance of evolution is severely lacking.

You think we're the narrow-minded ones?

Sometimes I wonder if you really read my posts. You have from the beginning called YEC's closeminded and since the beginning I have not denied my close-mindedness and even said that I don't mind being close minded on this subject. You are the one that fails to admit your closemindedness.

You can see our evolutionary glasses. I have them on when I read Genesis 1, I'll admit, but others on this forum don't and I've read them say that since young - since before they had any experience of evolutionism (inferred) - they were already reading Genesis 1 mythologically. Is it all evolution's fault? And do you see your own glasses - literalist glasses, subjective-theology glasses, maya glasses, post-Enlightenment-rationalist glasses, Western glasses ...

If i am wearing glasses then it is the same glasses that Paul and Jesus and Moses saw with. That I dont mind. You keep calling my beliefs maya for some reason, though I have stated over and over that I believe the earth is real and everything else I see as real. The fact that I believe God can do anything is far from justifying my belief as maya.

As a how, Genesis 1 is a very simplistic and scientifically useless how.

agreed

Speaking of "the waters above the firmament" makes a lot of sense when one realizes that the ancients saw the sky as a cast, solid, transparent object hanging above their heads, with water above it coloring it. But to make it an interstellar layer of ice? (like Humphreys did in Starlight and Time) ... even you would agree that that's reading a biittt too much into Genesis 1, when there's a far better and more sensible explanation at hand.

Last I heard it represents the layer of water or dense vapor that encompassed the earth along time ago. This as last I checked was even a theory that non-christian scientists held.

Don't twist God's word. Did God really say that He created a mature earth? Where? Does the Bible tell us how or where or when He aged the earth? And if not, how come you humans know so much when it seems God didn't see fit to tell us? You say God simply told you that He created the earth 6000 years ago. Why you have to twist that to fit your scientific theories and come up with the idea of a mature earth that scripture nowhere supports or contains is really beyond me.

What did i twist? I didn't change the translation. All I did was make an educated assumption that God created a mature earth along with everything else that he made mature. It seems obvious to me that God certainly made that assumption obvious enough to say that He told us.

BTW, gathering and farming is very different. The gatherer would assume that the earth would provide enough for him. If he is/was hungry, he can just simply pick up fruit and start munching. It was not until the Fall that agriculture was necessary for man's sustenance.

Well then perhaps you should re-read Genesis 2:15 where God tells Adam to WORK it and take care of it. I don't know, working a garden sounds more like farming than gathering to me.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Ya know, I was re-reading Genesis 3 and it becomes very clear near the end (v. 22 specifically) that they could have still lived forever afterward should they eat the Fruit of Life. The reason that they could not eat it was because of their sin. So now it shows clearer that physical death was a punishment for sin.

Jesus did correct Adams original sin, but we will not live physically forever until we eat the fruit of Life which it speaks about in revelation 22.

Our wages for sin was physical death and will be until we are able to eat of the Fruit of Life. Jesus returned to us the breath of God that was taken after the fall.

Oh, I think someone asked about where the garden of Eden is now. After the flood, geography had to have massively changed so there is no real way to know exactly where Eden is or was or even if it is still above ground, it could be under water in the ocean as well. Who knows?

 

[Critias]

Something that I don't think has been addressed by the TEs who believe Adam was mythical is, why does Genesis give him a specific life span, specific children and wife?

These children, had names and had children of their own. What do you use to show that this child was a real historical child, but the previous ones were not. Can any TE present the literary context of this to show such an assertion?

Secondly, it has been my experience in reading ancient myths that specific time frames such as life span years are not often used. As well as specific dimensions of an ark. I wonder how many TEs or even YECs know that the dimensions given in the Gilgamesh for that ark makes it a square. Last I checked, squares aren't the best designs for boats. What we see differently in Genesis is specific designs with specific dimensions. We don't see this kind of detail in ancient myths.

I also think what is often forgotton or left out is that either God directly told Moses what to write about the flood or there was an oral story of it(or both). And if there was an oral story of it - which the Jews do confirm there was - then this story was around well before the writing of the Gilgamesh story which would mean the Gilgamesh story is likely a rendition of an oral story with a secular twist to it.

Just some thoughts for fun.

 

[KerrMetric]

Something that I don't think has been addressed by the TEs who believe Adam was mythical is, why does Genesis give him a specific life span, specific children and wife?

I can't believe you are asking this. I think the point is that TE's consider Adam an archetype not that they think the writers of Genesis did.

 

[Critias]

I can't believe you are asking this. I think the point is that TE's consider Adam an archetype not that they think the writers of Genesis did.

Don't be in disbelief, it is plain before your eyes. I did ask.

The Genesis usage of Adam would not be consistent with an archetype. Unless you believe mankind died after 930 years and mankind had sons named Abel and Cain, etc.

That is why I am asking, because to me it seems obvious how inconsistent this claim would be.

 

[QuantumFlux]

That is why TE's pretty much have to have their own translation of the Bible. Notice what shernren was arguing about in Mark 10:6. Everyone who has ever translated it, made it pretty clear, but for whatever reason he had to twist it and make it something that it's not in order to prove his point.

Same with the beginning of Genesis. It is clear to anyone reading it (including a jewish audience), Adam was as real as Abraham in the book, but that doesn't coincide with evolution, so Adam is a myth, but Abraham is more believable so he is okay to believe existed.

As for shernren view of Adam being a real man but not the first man, he is just plain making the bible say what he wants. He follows it as long as it fits in with evolution, every part that doesn't has some hidden meaning that could not have been known until now. Why God would hide this meaning until we discovered evolution is another question.

A theory that this was written to show a different creation than the other myths around them is treading in dark territory. There is no seperation between a hebrew myth and the other myths in this case, other than shernren's claim that the other creation stories were violent. As if God had to make this story up to pursuade the Jews to worship him.

It really reminds me of the Jesus Seminar. Those people on a quest to find the "true" historical Jesus, but what they really wind up doing is voting on whether or not a miracle could happen, if the majority vote no then the historical Jesus wouldn't have REALLY done that miracle. They even do that with the parables, voting on whether or not a parable is what the historical Jesus would have said.

TE's are the same, they read Genesis, then vote on what it REALLY means.

 

[shernren]

Within the context of Mark 10:6, it is written as arches ktiseos, which would mean beginning of creation. The endings of these two words show singularity, meaning 1 creation, 1 beginning. Besides creation, ktisis also suggests an act of establishing. This doesn't mean day 3, 5, 1, or 6. Within the context, the reader would understand it to be day 6 because the Genesis account of creating male and female on day six. That is why it is commonly understood as day 6, which is the beginning of creation.

Specifically, this means not the beginning of God creating, but the beginning of creation itself. Different things were created on different days, as written in Genesis, so all 6 days are the beginning of creation.

Maybe that will help you better understand this.

Thanks, Critias, for taking the time to show me where I have been mistaken, instead of assuming that I can spot my own errors and correct them myself. I'm quite curious though. For me now the most accurate word picture in English that I can form of "beginning of the creation" is to take "beginning" as a gerund of "begin", instead of its traditional noun form, and to see it as the total of God's acts that shaped the world into what it is today. Am I correct? In that case, wouldn't it also be correct for a TE to point at the totality of prehistory and label it "the beginning of creation"? Since, after all, both YEC and TE agree that God created the heavens and the earth; the only disagreement is how long it took.

See, QuantumFlux, sometimes TEs will even admit that they are wrong if you're patient enough with them. sorry for not understanding where you were coming from on Mark 10:6.

Last I heard it represents the layer of water or dense vapor that encompassed the earth along time ago. This as last I checked was even a theory that non-christian scientists held.

Nope. Read Humphreys' analysis of "the waters beyond the firmament" in Starlight and Time. For a consistently scientific YEC reading of Scripture, the "firmament" has to be the entire observable universe and the waters beyond the firmament its boundary.

It is implied in Genesis that God created a mature earth. Think about it. Earth created in a matter of days for life to inhabit and be sustained. It would have to be mature in order to sustain life that quickly.

Have you ever watched a garden grow or sapling grow into a fruit giving tree? They take more then a few days to give sustance for animals and man to live off of.

This is a pre-scientific belief that goes back before the first century A.D. So, you can't say it has recently been made up because of current scientific standing.

What did i twist? I didn't change the translation. All I did was make an educated assumption that God created a mature earth along with everything else that he made mature. It seems obvious to me that God certainly made that assumption obvious enough to say that He told us.

The question is, why such an unequivocal appearance of age? Of course this borders on interrogating God, but if God simply grew to maturity what was needed for human survival, then what we should see today is a hodge-podge of old and young traits in the scientific makeup of the world. We should see, say, an old sun (because a young sun would bathe us in cancer-causing radiation and fry us to death), and rocks that are young with respect to radiodating (because ageing rocks' isotopic ratios is not necessary for life). Again, it seems more reasonable to me that the whole universe (and not just the part necessary for our survival) appears old because the whole universe is old.

Besides, isn't that same argument rather beholden to science as well? QuantumFlux has the opinion that God would tear apart solar systems just to house an exponentially increasing number of physical humans. If that is so, why couldn't He have made humans that can survive in a young universe? Surely that is possible for an omnipotent God who can age the entire universe at will. Science fiction has come up with a wild array of possible life forms, from quark-plasma beings surviving in the first few seconds of the Big Bang to wispy neutrino clouds surviving the Heat Death of the Universe itself, and everything in between; it's inconceivable that God couldn't have taken at least one of those lifeforms that can survive in a 6,000-year-old universe and made it scientifically possible. God, after all, isn't to be limited, is He?

As for shernren view of Adam being a real man but not the first man, he is just plain making the bible say what he wants. He follows it as long as it fits in with evolution, every part that doesn't has some hidden meaning that could not have been known until now. Why God would hide this meaning until we discovered evolution is another question.

What do you mean by "Adam being a real man but not the first man"? Of course Adam was the first man! (I have a closer view to the orthodox one than many believe TEs could have, it appears. So place all the souls that you know in their own little box .... )

 

[Critias]

Thanks, Critias, for taking the time to show me where I have been mistaken, instead of assuming that I can spot my own errors and correct them myself.

No problem. I wasn't sure if it would actually get explained or not considering that this is more of a bickering match than a debate to understand each other.

I'm quite curious though. For me now the most accurate word picture in English that I can form of "beginning of the creation" is to take "beginning" as a gerund of "begin", instead of its traditional noun form, and to see it as the total of God's acts that shaped the world into what it is today. Am I correct? In that case, wouldn't it also be correct for a TE to point at the totality of prehistory and label it "the beginning of creation"? Since, after all, both YEC and TE agree that God created the heavens and the earth; the only disagreement is how long it took.

If I understand you correctly, this wouldn't really work with the grammar of the statement. As I said, the words are singular meaning 1 creation, 1 beginning. Evolution suggests multiple creations and beginnings.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Besides, isn't that same argument rather beholden to science as well? QuantumFlux has the opinion that God would tear apart solar systems just to house an exponentially increasing number of physical humans. If that is so, why couldn't He have made humans that can survive in a young universe? Surely that is possible for an omnipotent God who can age the entire universe at will. Science fiction has come up with a wild array of possible life forms, from quark-plasma beings surviving in the first few seconds of the Big Bang to wispy neutrino clouds surviving the Heat Death of the Universe itself, and everything in between; it's inconceivable that God couldn't have taken at least one of those lifeforms that can survive in a 6,000-year-old universe and made it scientifically possible. God, after all, isn't to be limited, is He?

You see it as tearing the universe apart, I see it as but a mere wave of a hand, much like he held the sun for the extra day. Science would suggest how many variables that would screw up and how damaging it would be to gravity, the rotation of the earth and yadda yadda, but for God it is a mere whim to hold the sun in the sky.

What do you mean by "Adam being a real man but not the first man"? Of course Adam was the first man! (I have a closer view to the orthodox one than many believe TEs could have, it appears. So place all the souls that you know in their own little box .... )

Some how you don't see the obvious conflicts in this. We have all this primitive life and then finally an ape has a homo sapian and God mystically whisps this son of an ape off to paradise. Where there is no progression of agriculture, God simply appoints him to the task of working the garden of eden.

I suppose this is after he raises Adam so that he is sinless until he eats the fruit. But wait, Eve? Was she really taken from the rib or was she a daughter of an apeman like Adam, was she whisked away later?

Yep, some serious issues with that view.

No problem. I wasn't sure if it would actually get explained or not considering that this is more of a bickering match than a debate to understand each other.

This is a debate? All I am doing is responding to the aligations made on my original post. The original question was why some christians dismiss evolution. If this were a debate i would be more source siting and I probably would care about convincing someone that I had the right idea. As it is, I am just responding to replies to my original post and those after. I've already said multiple times that a. I'm close-minded b. I'm not interested in making you see my point.

I just get bored at work and replying seems to make time go by alittle faster.

 

[stumpjumper]

I just get bored at work and replying seems to make time go by alittle faster.

Now, Now. This is a debate because we're right and you're wrong

Just joking BTW. I have a book group with my Pastor and a few other members from our Church and we are currently reading Brian McLaren's The Story We Find Ourselves In. McLaren is part of this emerging Church movement of which my Pastor and another member of my book group who works at ELCA's local synod and one thing that is part of McLaren's view and his generous Orthodoxy seminars is instead of drawing the lines and saying "you're wrong and I'm right" it helps to understand a different perspective.

During our discussion last night (we're all TE's) we were talking about the ID trial in Harrisburg and some of the things that a local Pastor out there has been saying on the news and we realized that we were doing just that. We were saying amongst ourselves: "They're wrong and if they could only just understand origins from a different perspective. Of course, Creationists say the same things about us." It all goes back to the message of the Garden of Eden and our pride and arrogance. In our pride we reach for universal knowledge and the ability to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong while it is reality that determines what is right and wrong and we need to humbly and respectfully understand that we can never determine what is totally right just what is totally wrong and sometimes we are bad at that as well.

 

[artybloke]

Something that I don't think has been addressed by the TEs who believe Adam was mythical is, why does Genesis give him a specific life span, specific children and wife?

Why does any fiction writer give their characters wives, children, lifespans etc? Because it makes it a more interesting story. Not everything in a Biblical story has to have theological significance; sometimes it's just there to make it a more interesting/exciting/involving story. I've often thought that part of the problem with putting the Bible on a kind of pedestal is that we forget that it's also a literary product that came out of a society that loved telling stories. (Am I wrong in thinking that many YEC's are not great readers of fiction or poetry?)

Last I checked, squares aren't the best designs for boats.

No, but they're very good dimensions for a raft. Also, barges are relatively square when compared with most boats. Which may well be what is suggested by Gilgamesh.

Anyway, a wooden ship the size that the ark was said to be would be impossible to float; it would come apart at the seams however much you caulked it because it would be too heavy (even before you put anything it) so the dimensions of the ark are no more realistic than those in Gilgamesh. Only a steel-clad or steel-built ship could be that size, and we're talking early bronze age here.

 

[stumpjumper]

Don't be in disbelief, it is plain before your eyes. I did ask.

The Genesis usage of Adam would not be consistent with an archetype. Unless you believe mankind died after 930 years and mankind had sons named Abel and Cain, etc.

That is why I am asking, because to me it seems obvious how inconsistent this claim would be.

Well here is my view on Adam and Eve. First, I am sure we have a different view of the origin of scripture but I have read a TE exegesis from the view that scripture was verbally inspired by God as well as my view that it was an oral tradition passed down over generations. In both views scripture is inspired by God however it is the method of inspiration that is varied.

In Genesis 1:26 Adam is written in the Hebrew as eth-ha-adam and is translated as "let us make man in our image". You also have the plural Elohim for "us". Instead of translating that as man a direct translation of "eth-ha-adam" would be in the context of the passage "human like life forms" because of the plurality of both the object and the plurality of the originator and the commonality of the noun in that case.

Now in Genesis 2, you have a different name for God. Elohim has been changed to YHWH Elohim a more personal and singular "Lord God" and Adam has been changed to the singular as well with a simple "eth-adam". I view this change as a literary and contextual change to give the meaning of what happened in the mythical Garden to all man. Because, our estrangement from God is universal whether there was an actual Adam as figurehead of mankind matters not to me. You remember our converstation about Original Sin about 40 pages ago so I won't get into what the Tree of Knowledge means but it is a proper and personal Adam and Eve and a personal God because it is a personal trait that all of us hold between each other and God. I am convinced of original sin and the arrogance and pride of humanity.

But, now go to Genesis 4 and the eth in Adam has been changed back to a ha-adam which can never be used to denote an individual person. In fact in my Catholic Bible it states: Gen 4.1 "The man had relations with his wife Eve and she concieved and bore Cain, "Saying I have produced man with the help of the LORD. (just YHWH) Next she bore his brother Abel."

It does not say proper Adam in the original hebrew. So the best way to understand this passage is by saying that men (plural) had relations with their wives (singular possesive) and had sons. Now you know the story of Cain and Abel and how Cain killed Abel. It was saying that we multiplied and warred amongst ourselves even though we are all related. The hebrew word for blood was also plural when Cain killed Abel so it says more to the tune: "Our sons killed each other and their blood(s) were on the ground. (It loses its effect in english because of the translation.)

Anyway, the early parts of Genesis are primarily concerned with evil, our estrangement from God, and our ontological origin. IMO, not a literal history and that is why I do not believe Adam was a literal person. In parts of the story he is given a life-span and a real wife and children but that is part of the literary garb to denote a personalness about our relationship with each other and the Lord God.

 

[QuantumFlux]

In our pride we reach for universal knowledge and the ability to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong while it is reality that determines what is right and wrong and we need to humbly and respectfully understand that we can never determine what is totally right just what is totally wrong and sometimes we are bad at that as well.

The last time I said something like that I was accused of having a maya type attitude, but yes, I agree with you.

Anyway, a wooden ship the size that the ark was said to be would be impossible to float; it would come apart at the seams however much you caulked it because it would be too heavy (even before you put anything it) so the dimensions of the ark are no more realistic than those in Gilgamesh. Only a steel-clad or steel-built ship could be that size, and we're talking early bronze age here.

Have you tried it? No. Has anyone tried it since? No. Then how do you know? Even if that would be true, there is always room for miracles, especially when God directs someone to do something.

 

[artybloke]

Have you tried it?

People who know something about the qualities of wood do know what they're talking about. Unless of course you think there's a worldwide conspiracy of scientists, whether Christian or not, to descredit the Bible.

there is always room for miracles

Indeed there is. Though why he'd need one when he could do it through evolution just as easily, I don't know. It's not as if the stories in the Bible become meaningless as soon as you say they're not literal; if anything they become more meaningful when you no longer have to waste time trying to "prove" them.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Anyway, the early parts of Genesis are primarily concerned with evil, our estrangement from God, and our ontological origin. IMO, not a literal history and that is why I do not believe Adam was a literal person.

I agree with that but you neglect chapter 1. chapter one has a clear distinction between it and chapter 2 which means that chapter 1 has its own seperate meaning. It does not go along with the estrangement from God nor is it concerned with evil. Chapter 1 has it's own purpose and it seems pretty clear what it is.