Why do some Christians reject a literal Genesis

[Talcara]

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.

 

[Dark_Lite]

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.

My reasons? Literal Genesis goes against the evidence as you have said. From this stems all the theological problems with YECism. It makes God into a liar and deceiver... all that stuff.

 

[gluadys]

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.

In part. If it was only that the evidence contradicted the literal reading, that would not be sufficient.

But when you factor in that the God of the Bible is a God of truth, and the creator of said evidence, then you get into deep theological problems if you do not accept the truth of the evidence God created.

Scientific evidence, btw, does not admit of private interpretation. Two or more competing interpretations sometimes co-exist when the evidence is insufficient or ambiguous. This was the case of "steady state" vs. "big bang" theory before the discovery of cosmic background radiation. Since the discovery of cosmic background radiation, the steady state theory has been discarded in favour of big bang theory. Why? Because cosmic background radiation cannot be accounted for by the steady-state theory, while the big bang theory not only accounts for it--it requires that it be there.

The notion that the evidence in favour of an old earth or of evolution is susceptible to alternate interpretations is wishful thinking.

 

[mixin machine]

My reasons? Literal Genesis goes against the evidence as you have said. From this stems all the theological problems with YECism. It makes God into a liar and deceiver... all that stuff.

How can you say that your misinterpretation of facts makes God a liar? Is it impossible for man to not understand the past as much as they think they do. If it is proven that dinosours walked the earth 4000 years ago are evolutionists going to become YEC'S, probably not, they will just have to admit in misinterpreptation of facts and adjust their theories accordingly.

Andrew

 

[gluadys]

How can you say that your misinterpretation of facts makes God a liar? Is it impossible for man to not understand the past as much as they think they do. If it is proven that dinosours walked the earth 4000 years ago are evolutionists going to become YEC'S, probably not, they will just have to admit in misinterpreptation of facts and adjust their theories accordingly.

Andrew

First, demonstrate which facts have been misinterpreted and how, and what other interpretation fits the facts better.

 

[random_guy]

How can you say that your misinterpretation of facts makes God a liar? Is it impossible for man to not understand the past as much as they think they do. If it is proven that dinosours walked the earth 4000 years ago are evolutionists going to become YEC'S, probably not, they will just have to admit in misinterpreptation of facts and adjust their theories accordingly.

Andrew

If we find a dinosaur alive today, it doesn't mean YECism is true. It just means we need to revise our knowledge about dinosaurs. However, evolution, old Earth/Universe, they'll all continue to be accepted as the best theory. There's nothing in the ToE that says dinosaurs need to die out.

However, what your asking is like asking, "what if things stopped falling down?" I have a hard time thinking gravity will get overturned any more than evolution will get overturned. We've observed a change of allele frequencies over generations just like we've observed things falling down.

More shocking, why is revising our knowledge such a bad thing? Is Netwon any less of a person since this theories of gravity are wrong? Should we throw out Netwon's Laws of gravity since special relativity supercedes it?

I find it very sad that the idea of updating our knowledge in light of new evidence is viewed as a bad thing by Creationists.

 

[mixin machine]

If we find a dinosaur alive today, it doesn't mean YECism is true. It just means we need to revise our knowledge about dinosaurs. However, evolution, old Earth/Universe, they'll all continue to be accepted as the best theory. There's nothing in the ToE that says dinosaurs need to die out.

However, what your asking is like asking, "what if things stopped falling down?" I have a hard time thinking gravity will get overturned any more than evolution will get overturned. We've observed a change of allele frequencies over generations just like we've observed things falling down.

More shocking, why is revising our knowledge such a bad thing? Is Netwon any less of a person since this theories of gravity are wrong? Should we throw out Netwon's Laws of gravity since special relativity supercedes it?

I find it very sad that the idea of updating our knowledge in light of new evidence is viewed as a bad thing by Creationists.

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

 

[Critias]

Anyone who says that their interpretation or a scientists interpretation of evidence is wrong then God is a liar has already taken judgement against God.

This is an ongoing TE claim that if scientists are wrong with their interpretation of the evidence, then God is a liar; hence TEs believe the scientists interpretation of evidence.

Why must TEs always subject God to man's falliblity?

 

[Dark_Lite]

How can you say that your misinterpretation of facts makes God a liar? Is it impossible for man to not understand the past as much as they think they do. If it is proven that dinosours walked the earth 4000 years ago are evolutionists going to become YEC'S, probably not, they will just have to admit in misinterpreptation of facts and adjust their theories accordingly.

Andrew

There is of ocurse the small chance that evolutionary theory and all such things we have today are wrong models. However, the chance of that, especially today, is extremely slim. The details change but the overarching concept and theory remains the same. It has been around for the last 150 years.

It does not take much to see that YECism isn't reality.

 

[ebia]

Anyone who says that their interpretation or a scientists interpretation of evidence is wrong then God is a liar has already taken judgement against God.

This is an ongoing TE claim that if scientists are wrong with their interpretation of the evidence, then God is a liar; hence TEs believe the scientists interpretation of evidence.

Why must TEs always subject God to man's falliblity?

You've got it backwards. Or in a knot. Or something.

No-one is calling God a liar. They are saying that God has told us about Creation through Creation itself. God IS NOT a liar. Therefore the message that God is communicating to us through Genesis is not a literal story that contradicts his message through Creation, but a theological story that is independent of his message through Creation.

 

[ebia]

There is of ocurse the small chance that evolutionary theory and all such things we have today are wrong models. However, the chance of that, especially today, is extremely slim. The details change but the overarching concept and theory remains the same. It has been around for the last 150 years.

Which is pretty much the same as our reading of Genesis.

The fact is that we can now read at least part of the story that Creation itself tells us, just as well as we can read the words of Genesis. The only objections come from those who can read Genesis, but cannot or will not read Creation.

 

[Brownsy]

I think the point that some people have been making is that IF it is a young earth, then we have all this evidence that God has pressumably created that points to an old earth. Why would he create evidence suggesting the earth is billions of years old when it is only 6000 or so years old.

And YEC's have yet to substantiate there claims of scientific misinterpretation. As has been asked previously, what exaclty has been misinterpreted, how do you know this, and what, in fact, is the correct interpretation. Until someone can satisfactorily answer this, can people stop with the blind allegations of misinterpretation.

Blessings to you all

 

[notto]

Anyone who says that their interpretation or a scientists interpretation of evidence is wrong then God is a liar has already taken judgement against God.

This is an ongoing TE claim that if scientists are wrong with their interpretation of the evidence, then God is a liar; hence TEs believe the scientists interpretation of evidence.

Why must TEs always subject God to man's falliblity?

I know God is a not a liar so the YEC ideas must be false.

I'm not sugjecting God to man's fallibility, just subjecting creationists to fallibility because they cling to man's interpretation of the scriptures when the creation and God's own works are telling them they are wrong.

 

[theFijian]

Why must TEs always subject God to man's falliblity?

Which is precisely what you do every time you accept a minister's teaching or theology.

 

[Critias]

Which is precisely what you do every time you accept a minister's teaching or theology.

So, if I follow God's teachings, I am subjecting God to man's fallibility? Explain.

 

[Critias]

I know God is a not a liar so the YEC ideas must be false.

I'm not sugjecting God to man's fallibility, just subjecting creationists to fallibility because they cling to man's interpretation of the scriptures when the creation and God's own works are telling them they are wrong.

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.

 

[artybloke]

So, if I follow God's teachings, I am subjecting God to man's fallibility? Explain.

What are God's teachings? Your interpretation of the Bible? Billy Graham's interpretation of the Bible? Ken Ham's? Every time you read the Bible, you interpret it. Or do you think God just plants the right interpretation into your head, without it having to make its way through whatever prejudices or presuppositions you already have? I have prejudices/presuppositions, some I've examined and questioned and some I have not because I have no idea that they're even there; what are your prejudices and presuppositions (especially the ones you have so far left unexamined, like the idea that 5th C BC ancient Hebrews had a 19th/20th modernist understanding of history/science?)

I would never presume that my understanding of the Bible was anything other than limited and provisional. All readings of the Bible - whether you call it "literal" or "symbolic" - are interpretations. There's no such thing as a "pure" interpretation, any more than there's such a thing as a correct translation.

 

[Critias]

What are God's teachings? Your interpretation of the Bible? Billy Graham's interpretation of the Bible? Ken Ham's? Every time you read the Bible, you interpret it. Or do you think God just plants the right interpretation into your head, without it having to make its way through whatever prejudices or presuppositions you already have? I have prejudices/presuppositions, some I've examined and questioned and some I have not because I have no idea that they're even there; what are your prejudices and presuppositions (especially the ones you have so far left unexamined, like the idea that 5th C BC ancient Hebrews had a 19th/20th modernist understanding of history/science?)

I would never presume that my understanding of the Bible was anything other than limited and provisional. All readings of the Bible - whether you call it "literal" or "symbolic" - are interpretations. There's no such thing as a "pure" interpretation, any more than there's such a thing as a correct translation.

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.

 

[artybloke]

Don't you know that the Holy Spirit leads His own into understanding?

So if I say, and I do, that the Holy Spirit has led me to an understanding that God created through evolution and that Genesis is meant to be read symbolically; and you say, and you do, that the Holy Spirit has led you to say that the Genesis account is "literal" (at least in your modernistic/scientistic understanding of "literal") then who has more of the Holy spirit, me or thee?

My interpretation is that what God says is True in Nature is true because I don't believe that God confines His message to the Bible. I have all the evidence that God has revealed to me in the world; you have your limited human interpretation of the Bible plus the lies and distortions of so-called creation "scientists." And I do mean lies; I think they tell lies.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

So, if I follow God's teachings, I am subjecting God to man's fallibility? Explain.

As far as I know, God isn't sending angelic messengers to you explaining things to you. Therefore, much of your knowledge of God passes through humans. Even when you read the Bible, the words must pass through your human and therefore fallible mind to understand them.