Why do some Christians reject a literal Genesis

[fragmentsofdreams]

It is always sad to see Christians make such statements. Don't you know that the Holy Spirit leads His own into understanding? That we don't rely on our own understanding but His?

Call my reading an interpretation. That is what it is and it still can be a correct interpretation or even a wrong interpretation.

But, realize, your scientists whom you follow also interpret evidence. Evidence never speaks without human assistance. Creation alone doesn't verbally tell us how these fossils got here and what state the earth was in 5000 years ago. Scientists make guesses and assertions to such.

So, we are on the same level. Your interpretation versus my interpretation. Your interpretation is with the presupposition of what scientists tell you. Mine is that what God says is True and did occur in history because He is very real and works within our real history. He is not bound to myths, but works within this world, pursuing us so that all might be saved.

My interpretation also is that what Genesis says is True. The problem is that not all methods of conveying Truth are literal.

 

[Knowledge3]

[[[EDIT]]]

 

[notto]

You are. You are saying if the scientist interpretation of the evidence is wrong, God is a liar. You are blaming God for scientists being wrong.

Same is true of a YEC says if my interpretation is wrong, God is a liar. This YEC is subjecting God to blame if they are wrong.

It seems almost every TE here has said that if they are wrong in trusting scientists who are wrong, then God is at fault, not them.

This is the if YEC is true, God is a liar fallacy. It is as if YEC cannot ever be true with God being who He is, sinless.

Anytime you attribute sin to God, you are taking judgement against God.

If I was you, I would be really careful about calling down judgement on the Almighty.

I know God isn't a liar. Did you miss that part?

I know YEC is wrong because I KNOW GOD IS NOT A LIAR!!!!!

Nice appeal to emotion though. I particularly like the 'calling down judgement on the Almighty' bit. Keep up the good work at misrepresenting TE's and appealing to emotion.

Question for you. If the world is old and evolution happened, is God a liar?

 

[Knowledge3]

Hi all,
Just a short thread. Do evolutionists reject a face value reading of Genesis because the scientific evidence (at least, your interpretation of it) is against it? Is there any other reason - or is this reason [the evidence says the total opposite of a literal Genesis] the main one for you rejecting a literal Genesis?

Just curious. I'll add a bit more later after I get some responses.

Your brother in Christ,
Talcara.

To be honest, I do not really know..The Spirit of God is directly involved in second verse, so if God did create and express creation in that account I would have to agree with it.

I don't understand why people take so much issue with this, and it is bit disheartening..It seems that people are abandoning the original creation in light of popular belief and evidence. But I think it is more of an issue of faith.

If you favor a secular and evolution based opinion, then it is more of a belief perspectiveo on both ends..

 

[Silent Bob]

Hi all,
Just a short thread. Do evolutionists reject a face value reading of Genesis because the scientific evidence (at least, your interpretation of it) is against it? Is there any other reason - or is this reason [the evidence says the total opposite of a literal Genesis] the main one for you rejecting a literal Genesis?

Just curious. I'll add a bit more later after I get some responses.

Your brother in Christ,
Talcara.

It is not about interpreting evidence. Evolution has at least 5 different lines of evidence pointing directly to it. All of which have come under attack by Creationist "scientist" and all of their attacks fail.

1) Paleontology
2) Comparative anatomy
3) Geographical distribution
4) Comparative embryology
5) Comparative physiology and biochemistry

If evolution was wrong then our scientific understanding of the world is extremely false and no scientist has been able to figure it out.

Science as it works deals in falsification. It lives and breaths through each scientists efforts to prove others wrong. IF there was any real alternative, viable interpretation it would have been heard years ago. There is none. That is exactly why the statement that if YEC is true then God is a liar. It is easier to reject man's interpretation of the Genesis account than to reject hundreds of years of research because it doesnt correspond with a small group's ideas.

With so many interpretations on really important issues surrounding Christianity the very idea of infalible reading of the Bible is surelly laughable.

Finally a statement I have made a few times.

Bible != God. Stop deifying books!

 

[Critias]

I know God isn't a liar. Did you miss that part?

I know YEC is wrong because I KNOW GOD IS NOT A LIAR!!!!!

Nice appeal to emotion though. I particularly like the 'calling down judgement on the Almighty' bit. Keep up the good work at misrepresenting TE's and appealing to emotion.

Question for you. If the world is old and evolution happened, is God a liar?

By your statement, 'I know YEC is wrong because I know God is not a liar' you are also stating that if YEC is correct, God is a liar.

If evolution happened and the world is old, God is not a liar, I misunderstood. Your stance is different, if you are wrong, God is a liar. Unfortunately, are not able to see this when you justify accusing God of lying if YEC is true.

 

[Critias]

My interpretation also is that what Genesis says is True. The problem is that not all methods of conveying Truth are literal.

Quite true. Most TEs start with a presuppostion that scientists are correct and if they are wrong, God is a liar.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Quite true. Most TEs start with a presuppostion that scientists are correct and if they are wrong, God is a liar.

Here is the situation as I see it. The evidence for an old Earth is strong, so strong that the only conceivable model that could reconcile a young Earth with the evidence is one that asserts that God created the Universe with evidence that would make it much older.

However, the problems with YEC aren't just scientific. A close reading of Genesis reveals that it is not a unified historical account, but a collection of narratives partially but not completely harmonized into one account. One could attempt to harmonize these accounts further, but doing so deviates from the literal or plain reading, and this is exactly what attempting to harmonize the accounts would be attempting to prevent. Rather, it would be more prudent to read it as a presentation of messages through narrative form.

 

[random_guy]

How can you say that your misinterpretation of facts makes God a liar?

that was my question to Dark_Lite. Why must God be the liar? Why couldn't updating of knowledge as you say be the explanation? That was my point!!!
I don't think updating knowledge is viewed as a bad thing. So if we are updating knowledge that doesn't mean that God is a liar, instead human's misinterpreted the facts.

Andrew

My point was that there's a difference between what the YECists believe and the scientists believe. We can measure the rates of decay and they've remained pretty constant for the past several hundred thousand years. Same with the speed of light. Now, many YECists believe that the world was young, but created to look old. This view makes God to be a liar.

However, how science was done a long time ago compared to now, it's radically different. We now use the scientific method, and we have a system of peer-review. It is unlikely that apples will fall up as well as allele frequencies completely stop changing over generations. Just as much, it's unlikely that evolution or gravity will ever be false.

The other YECist view that science was wrong before, and it might wrong now is completely wrong. Yes, we might not completely understand everything due to misinterpretation of some set of data, but this does not mean old age of Earth will be overturned. Instead, we've been getting refined estimates of the age of the Earth. The chances of us reinterpretrating the age of the Earth to be ~10000 years is about the same as the Sun not rising tomorrow, not very good. This is what Creationists fail to understand. Once a position has been falsified, it becomes near impossible to bring it back.

 

[gluadys]

If evolution happened and the world is old, God is not a liar, I misunderstood. Your stance is different, if you are wrong, God is a liar. Unfortunately, are not able to see this when you justify accusing God of lying if YEC is true.

No, my stance is the same as yours. If the earth is young and evolution did not occur, God is not a liar. I am mistaken.

But so is virtually every scientist in the world today.

So it is going to take a genuine evidence-based falsification of current scientific evaluations of reality -- the kind that will persuade the scientists themselves-- to convince me that I am mistaken.

That is what creationists--including creationist scientists--have been unable to offer.

For me, it comes back to the basic question I have posed before.

Did God create a real world?

 

[notto]

By your statement, 'I know YEC is wrong because I know God is not a liar' you are also stating that if YEC is correct, God is a liar.

If evolution happened and the world is old, God is not a liar, I misunderstood. Your stance is different, if you are wrong, God is a liar. Unfortunately, are not able to see this when you justify accusing God of lying if YEC is true.

But I know God is not a liar so YEC is false. If God is a liar, YEC could be true, but since I know that God is not a liar, YEC is false.

It's funny to see you keep trying to abuse your line of reasoning and appeal to emotions. Keep it up.

It interesting to see you state that a literal interpretation of the bible isn't mandated by God and that there is evidence in creation that could prove the literal interpretation wrong. I'm not sure many other YEC's would take that position. Most I've seen are of the 'God said it, I believe it, that settles it' variety.

In that case, they are taking it as the literal word of God (and not their interpretation) that the world is young and they are accepting it based on the word of God alone. If it turns out that the world is young, I don't know how they could come to any other conclusion other than God is a liar. What would the alternative be? They were mistaken about what God said in his literal word? Still would make God a liar if they truely were taking it literally and only accept a literal translation. That they were mistaken that the word is to be taken literally? Well, since they do that based on the word of God as well, still makes God a liar because God told them to take it literally.

Since the world has pretty much been shown to be old beyond any reasonable doubt by multiple independent lines of evidence in the creation itself, I guess you should have no problem accepting it since it just means you were wrong and God's creation was pointing you in the right direction all along.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong? Why do you deny what the work of creation is telling you? Why are you denying God's creation and all it tells us? And to borrow from another wonderful poster, didn't God create a real world?

 

[shernren]

By your statement, 'I know YEC is wrong because I know God is not a liar' you are also stating that if YEC is correct, God is a liar.

If evolution happened and the world is old, God is not a liar, I misunderstood. Your stance is different, if you are wrong, God is a liar. Unfortunately, are not able to see this when you justify accusing God of lying if YEC is true.

One very important caveat. We are talking strictly about the present state of affairs. This is not being restrictive, it is simply being prudent. It is pointless to talk about science a few hundred years from now, the way some creationists do when they say creationism is to evolutionism as GR is to Newtonian gravity.

Given the current scientific state of affairs: what are the chances that the scientists are wrong? Well, you are right in that scientists are fallible. Evolution has seen many false conceptions broken and replaced by truer conceptions (though none pointed in the direction of creationism). But what we take into account is that there is a very broad consensus about the most fundamental details. Everybody squabbles about which particular evolutionary pathway this or that organism took, it's true, but at least almost everybody agrees that there is an evolutionary pathway, somewhat like how quantum theorists quibble about what the "M" in "M-theory" really means but use it all the same.

The fact that they are in consensus is powerful. Theology was also decided this way. Canonization was by consensus; so was the Trinity, so were the Creeds. You will immediately cry "heresy", but listen. The theologians knew that they were being guided by the Holy Spirit - why? Because they were being guided in consensus. The fact that they could agree, to them, showed that they were being guided by the very same God. Consensus among the theologians was a sign of truth. What about in science? Think about it: scientists have a lot to gain from controversy. Controversy has fueled all of the last 20 years' worth of quantum mechanics. Where there is controversy, where there is heated debate, a theory's weak points will be exposed and shown for what they are very quickly. So why not controversy about evolution? Because, apart from the fringe that "scientific creationism" represents, there is no ground for controversy, by all current knowledge.

Given the current state of our knowledge, if YECism is true, then there must be something wrong with our knowledge. And since the knowledge we speak of here is the knowledge of God's creation, there must be something wrong with either the knower or the known. If there is something wrong with the known - if something is wrong about God's creation then God must have been wrong, per imposibile. Thus the only possibility is that there is something wrong with the knower, and that what we have known is not what God intended us to know - in effect that what we heard was a lie. Thus given the current state of our knowledge, for YEC to be true there must be a complete and massive deception somewhere.

No such massive, complete and consensual fantasizing is necessary for TEism to be true.

If evolution happened and the world is old, God is not a liar, I misunderstood.

Really? Many times you and other creationists have said that for us TEs to believe what we believe, something must be wrong with our knowledge of God and His word. Furthermore, you have supported your YEC stance not by relying on your knowledge of God and His word, but by relying on what you say is God and His word. The obvious conclusion is that to you, YECism is directly supported by God and His word, TEism is directly opposed by God and His word, and thus for TEism to be right God and His word has to be wrong. Pot, meet kettle.

AiG is responsible of similar statements. For example:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

An evidence A contradicts a record B if
for evidence A to be true, record B is false.

(in logic speak, "A contradicts B if (A -> !B) - that's actually a definition of contradiction, AFAIK.)

So if the evidence for evolution contradicts the Scriptural record, then
if evolution is true, then the Scriptural record is false.

Hmm. Looks like TEs aren't the only ones who claim infallibility. Note that in their statement of belief there isn't a single statement, implication, or probably even the slightest whisper that they are humans who might (shock! gasp! the impiety! the insolence!) be ... *dumdumdum* ... wrong.

 

[ebia]

(in logic speak, "A contradicts B if (A <-> !B) - that's actually a definition of contradiction, AFAIK.)

Surely "A contradicts B if (A->!B)"

!B does not necessarly imply A.

 

[shernren]

You're right, my mistake. I've corrected it.

(See? Evolutionists do admit when they're wrong! )

 

[Talcara]

Okay, thanks especially to those who responded to the actual thread question. I can see that you've gone off track a little bit, so I'll get to the main intention of this thread.

Now, you reject a literal reading of Genesis because it supposedly is contradicted by the evidence. But, have you ever stopped to consider this and apply those same principles to the supposed resurrection of Jesus?

Science tells us that dead people stay dead. The evidence is that 100% of dead people stay dead after they've died. It's a pretty convincing statistic. Most would claim undeniable.

So, why do you reject a literal reading of Genesis based on scientific grounds, yet ignore the scientific evidence against the resurrection and believe that Jesus was raised anyway? Isn't that being inconsistent with your own standards of proof? You appear to believe the resurrection of Jesus despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence against it, yet you reject Genesis on the basis of arguable (non-definitive) evidence. Why is this so?

Note: I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, but I'm trying to come at you from the perspective of a skeptic and thus my questioning sounds a little indifferent. I also believe in a "literal" reading of Genesis and would like to discuss them, but this is not the intention of this thread.

 

[ebia]

Okay, thanks especially to those who responded to the actual thread question. I can see that you've gone off track a little bit, so I'll get to the main intention of this thread.

Now, you reject a literal reading of Genesis because it supposedly is contradicted by the evidence. But, have you ever stopped to consider this and apply those same principles to the supposed resurrection of Jesus?

Science tells us that dead people stay dead. The evidence is that 100% of dead people stay dead after they've died. It's a pretty convincing statistic. Most would claim undeniable.

So, why do you reject a literal reading of Genesis based on scientific grounds, yet ignore the scientific evidence against the resurrection and believe that Jesus was raised anyway? Isn't that being inconsistent with your own standards of proof? You appear to believe the resurrection of Jesus despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence against it, yet you reject Genesis on the basis of arguable (non-definitive) evidence. Why is this so?

Note: I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, but I'm trying to come at you from the perspective of a skeptic and thus my questioning sounds a little indifferent. I also believe in a "literal" reading of Genesis and would like to discuss them, but this is not the intention of this thread.

Because it's not equivalent.

Science tells us that people who are dead stay dead, but then the Gospel writers knew that 2000 years ago. Science does not tell us that the individual Jesus of Nazarath did not rise from the dead, only that (normally) people do not. The resurection is an example of a miracle - when the normal rules don't apply. The resurection would not leave behind any evidence for use to check.

On the other hand, science not only tells us that a 6 day creation 6000 years ago could not happen, it also tell us that it DID NOT HAPPEN. A 6 day creation 6000 years ago would leave evidence that would could check. That evidence does not exist - in fact evidence exists that could not exist if the Genesis story were literally true.

 

[Silent Bob]

So, why do you reject a literal reading of Genesis based on scientific grounds, yet ignore the scientific evidence against the resurrection and believe that Jesus was raised anyway? Isn't that being inconsistent with your own standards of proof? You appear to believe the resurrection of Jesus despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence against it, yet you reject Genesis on the basis of arguable (non-definitive) evidence. Why is this so?

Speaking for myself I reject a literal reading of Genesis because all of the evidence point against it. Even the theological ones.

However I accept that God exists and since that is true miracles can happen. Hence I accept the resurrection. To say that literal genesis could be true, while proven false by many scientific paths, by a miracle is to say God made it appear so. Therefore God becomes a trickster and I do not believe in Loki.

It is at all possible that the world appeared as it is with all our memories created last thursday that doesn't make this idea theologically valid at all.

 

[Talcara]

I generally don't like debating origins (it's pretty pointless, nothing that I can say will convince you of the error in your ways and vice versa) and much prefer debating Christian doctrine in the General Theology section and assist in answering non-Christians questions about Christianity and even talking in the Non-Christian Religion forum, but I'll participate in this thread I guess to help my post number get up a little.

Hi ebia,

Science tells us that people who are dead stay dead, but then the Gospel writers knew that 2000 years ago. Science does not tell us that the individual Jesus of Nazarath did not rise from the dead, only that (normally) people do not. The resurection is an example of a miracle - when the normal rules don't apply. The resurection would not leave behind any evidence for use to check.

Actually, we should expect many, many records to be written about this amazing event by all types of people, particularly from those in the 500 that He appeared to if it happened.

So the fact remains, that you turn your back on science and believe out of blind faith that the resurrection occurred. Congrats, you're one step closer to becoming a creationist. Just so you know, that was a joke and not meant to be taken literally...

You also mentioned that "the resurrection is an example of a miracle - when the normal rules don't apply" to quote you. Is not creation as described in Genesis "an example of a miracle - when the normal rules don't apply"? Dust generally doesn't become man and plants generally just don't "come forth" from the ground without pre-existing seeds being planted. Similarly, animals and birds just don't generally appear "ex-nihlio". Stars and so on just don't "appear" in different colours and types.

It seems like your being choosey...

Now to deal with the issue of scientific evidence:

On the other hand, science not only tells us that a 6 day creation 6000 years ago could not happen, it also tell us that it DID NOT HAPPEN. A 6 day creation 6000 years ago would leave evidence that would could check. That evidence does not exist - in fact evidence exists that could not exist if the Genesis story were literally true.

Actually, science doesn't tell us anything that you assert it does. Your interpretation of the scientific evidence tells you that it can't. The evidence itself is indifferent and can't speak. All evidence must be interpreted by people for any sense and knowledge to be derived from it. These interpretations are generally based on what the person viewing/testing, etc, etc, intially believes or presupposes.

You people make the same mistake that Cataylst did last night on ABC (in Australia). They mistakening believe that [molecules-to-man] evolution is science. Clearly it is history and not science. They also failed to see the difference between the scientific evidence (rocks, fossils, etc, etc) and the interpretation of the evidence. Personally, I was disgusted by the reporting and the ignorance displayed. I have never seen such biased reporting in my life! It was on Intelligent Design. What they failed to note and understand is that ID proponents generally believe in evolutionary theory - they just believe that a God was neccessary in kick starting it. Anyway, the show was going on about how unscientific it was and while at the same time claiming how scientific [molecules-to-man] evolution is. Dumbfounded? I was too considering that they essentially believe the same thing! Quite stupid in my opinion. I doubt that you people (who believe that God kick started evolution, even guiding it I guess) would have liked your beliefs being likened by scientists to "unscientific"...

Anyway, back to what I was saying before I got side tracked:

The scientific method cannot be applied to historical events. I can go into this a little deeper if you want.

The radiometric dating methods are based on fallible assumptions that have been shown time and time again to be flawed, particularly when radio-active carbon has been found in rocks supposedly millions of years old! Obviously there is something wrong with the assumptions behind the methods. So there goes the "radiometric dating methods prove old Earth" argument. It is not definitive proof, more a belief based on circular reasoning. You assume all the things such as how much daughter element there was originally, that it is a closed system, and so on, and then you get a date based on those assumptions. You then claim that you've proven an old Earth. See the circular reasoning behind it coming through yet?

The fossils themselves do not "prove" evolution. Those who claim that they do miss the point that it is their interpretation of the evidence that "disproves" creation. In actual fact, there are only a few highly debatable candidates for transitional forms.

Hi Cronic,

Even the theological ones [point against a literal creation].

Well, here's a new one. To what theological arguments are against a literal Genesis? I can name more than a few in favour of a literal Genesis, but none against it.

Sooo hungry and sooo tired. I'll go and get something to eat and then its off to bed for me.

Yours in Christ,
Talcara.

 

[shernren]

Okay, thanks especially to those who responded to the actual thread question. I can see that you've gone off track a little bit, so I'll get to the main intention of this thread.

Now, you reject a literal reading of Genesis because it supposedly is contradicted by the evidence. But, have you ever stopped to consider this and apply those same principles to the supposed resurrection of Jesus?

Science tells us that dead people stay dead. The evidence is that 100% of dead people stay dead after they've died. It's a pretty convincing statistic. Most would claim undeniable.

So, why do you reject a literal reading of Genesis based on scientific grounds, yet ignore the scientific evidence against the resurrection and believe that Jesus was raised anyway? Isn't that being inconsistent with your own standards of proof? You appear to believe the resurrection of Jesus despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence against it, yet you reject Genesis on the basis of arguable (non-definitive) evidence. Why is this so?

I have two reasons: one solid and one lazy. The solid reason is that although both the Resurrection and YECism are scientifically implausible, one is more historically plausible than the other. The Resurrection left its mark on the people who witnessed it and its effects. Peter turned from a fisherman into a 1st century Billy Graham. Thousands of people were converted overnight and they were converted into practically the only successful voluntary commune in history, AFAIK, and if there were any others they were probably formed within the framework of that first church. Within one lifetime the Gospel spread from Palestinian backwaters and smeared itself across the face of the whole Roman empire, most of it fueled by one persecutor-turned-preacher named Paul of Tarsus. Etc. etc.

To attribute all of that to grave robbers and mass hallucinations is rather unreal.

On the other hand, I know of no one who has been martyred for YECism and no historical event which doesn't make sense without the YEC historical framework. So why should I bother with it?

The lazy reason is that it is very difficult to reconcile my faith with the idea that Jesus was not resurrected. Whereas for me at least it is easy to reconcile my faith with evolution and old ages, as long as I believe that God created life and that God was directly involved in creating humans (both of which the current scientific lack of development in the field seem to support). Paul said that we are to be most pitied of all men if Jesus did not rise from the dead ... not that we are to be most pitied of all men if the earth and the universe are billions of years old.

 

[shernren]

It was on Intelligent Design. What they failed to note and understand is that ID proponents generally believe in evolutionary theory - they just believe that a God was neccessary in kick starting it.

O_O that is the worst misrepresentation of ID theory I have ever heard. ID theorists believe that evolution could not possibly have generated the complexity we see in life today. Not a single bit of it. The Intelligent Designer (the sanitized, PC name of God) built everything from the bottom up.

The radiometric dating methods are based on fallible assumptions that have been shown time and time again to be flawed, particularly when radio-active carbon has been found in rocks supposedly millions of years old! Obviously there is something wrong with the assumptions behind the methods. So there goes the "radiometric dating methods prove old Earth" argument. It is not definitive proof, more a belief based on circular reasoning. You assume all the things such as how much daughter element there was originally, that it is a closed system, and so on, and then you get a date based on those assumptions. You then claim that you've proven an old Earth. See the circular reasoning behind it coming through yet?

Radioactive carbon found in millions-of-years-old rock: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

The assumption of how much daughter element there was initially is not required for isochron dating. The assumption of a closed system can be experimentally tested; it is also a necessary assumption of science - that if a system shows no evidence of being tampered with by natural methods then the system has not been tampered with. Of course there is the possibility that the system has been tampered with supernaturally (mature creation, among others) but there is no scientific way to quantify that.

The fossils themselves do not "prove" evolution. Those who claim that they do miss the point that it is their interpretation of the evidence that "disproves" creation. In actual fact, there are only a few highly debatable candidates for transitional forms.

I remember starting a thread some time back about alternative interpretations of old-earth isochron data. Not a very fruitful discussion, partly because I don't have the access to raw data that scientific creationist theorists need. But only one YEC actually attempted it out of all those supporters here. For all that talk about how evolutionism is just an interpretation it's still a far better interpretation than anything creationism can come up with.

I generally don't like debating origins (it's pretty pointless, nothing that I can say will convince you of the error in your ways and vice versa) and much prefer debating Christian doctrine in the General Theology section and assist in answering non-Christians questions about Christianity and even talking in the Non-Christian Religion forum, but I'll participate in this thread I guess to help my post number get up a little.

Oh no, origins is fun! It's the only place I can think of where people can be on the absolutely opposite ends of the spectrum, throw fire at each other and still think each other to be Christian. (At least, that's if you ask me. Some disagree. Apparently I've substandard theology for believing that nature doesn't misbehave.)