YECs, why do you do it?

[Assyrian]

Good question. The YEC view is actually a very essential logical component to the gospel. It's not so much about the age of the earth, nor the length of the days, but rather the logical order of sin, suffering and death. Gen. 1:31 clearly states that God created a "very good" world that was marred by sin afterward. Suffering and death followed. God would remedy this by bringing a savior that would restore the world to what it once was, a place where lions don't kill lambs, and vipers don't bite children. Eventually he would completely start over and create a new heavens and earth as good as the first one, for those who place their trust in him.

Problem is, all alternative readings of Genesis distort the logic of this basic message as they require death and suffering to predate and precede sin.

That's it in a nutshell. That's why it's important to evangelicals. The issue of scriptural inerrancy is also important, as these liberties in interpretation can be applied to any other part of the bible just as logically. Those are the two big issues. I think they're worth debating over.

How does that effect my walk? We're to love God with all our heart soul and mind. God gave us a very logical book which explains things clearly. If you settle for an illogical gospel that's going to affect your walk, as you're forced to leave your mind out of it. I want people to enjoy God in every way. That's why I post on this issue.

I think this is an important post explaining the problems creationists have with evolution. They see the gospel and salvation within a grand narrative of the creation of man in Eden, its loss when we fell, and the restoration of Eden through the cross. If Evolution questions this perspective it seems to question the gospel itself and the very trustworthiness of God's word.

The thing is though, the gospel is not presented in the bible as a restoration of Eden. There are grand narratives in scripture, but the restoration of Eden is not one of them. The Israelites looked to the promises to Abraham, their redemption from slavery in Egypt and being given the law as the foundational narratives of their history. That is why the psalms keep going back to the Exodus telling their story, not Eden.

Of course the gospel goes way beyond the simply forgiveness of sins, it is the promise of resurrection and the transformation of our bodies. But the bible does not talk of the transformation restoring our bodies to the Edenic prefall state, instead the transformation is described again and again as way beyond the first creation, 1Cor 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him" That would include what Adam saw before he fell too.

Creationists look to the description of the lion lying down with the lamb in Isaiah as a description of the restoration of animals to their vegetarian state in Eden. Yet Isaiah does not describe this as a return to the Edenic state, nor is it even clear Isaiah is even speaking about literal animals, the passage appears in the middle of a highly figurative description of messiah restoring justice and it is just as likely it is talking about predatory humans. Nor does Genesis specifically state animals were vegetarian before the fall, just that God provided vegetation as a food source for all his creation. Which is true today too. Other creation accounts, Psalm 104 and Job 38 speak of God providing prey for the hungry young of lions and ravens.

There is a powerful emotional argument in the claim if there were carnivores before he fall then God would not have called creation good. But the power of the argument is purely emotional, on the level of kids refusing to eat stewed rabbit because of Bugs Bunny, though they would not refuse a Big Mac. This argument is not based on anything we know of the nature of God from scripture, who describes himself as providing prey to hungry ravens and ordained the death of countless sheep goats and cattle in temple sacrifices as an illustration of sin and redemption. And of course the God who gave these animals their lives has the right to demand it back, or give their meat as food to hungry lions or people. Our father in heaven watches over the sparrow, but he watches it fall from the sky too. Creationists try to explain this away by appeals to this being after the fall, but it still leaves them without any basis in scripture for their description of the nature of God not calling carnivores before the fall 'good'. It raises a fundamental ethical dilemma for creationist, if animal death was not good before the fall, it still isn't good after the fall and God's involvement in the death of animals providing prey to lions and ravens, commanding live sacrifices and wiping out animals in the flood is inconsistent with a holy God.

There is no basis in scripture for animals being changed by the fall either. No suggestion that the death that came with the fall and spread to all mankind affected animals too. This is one of the big problems they have with evolution, but it is simply part of the grand narrative creationists look to, not what scripture actually says.

 

[food4thought]

I will take the time to answer your questions, and I hope that in return you will take the time to answer the questions in the OP, since that is the topic of this thread.

ok, I just did.

Evolution does not contradict the meaning of scripture, it contradicts a very narrow interpretation of it. Your presentation of a necessary choice between man's knowledge through science and Gods word reveals that you don't really understand your fellow Christians who accept evolution as Gods mechanism for creation.

I think evolution contradicts the very foundation of our faith: the fall, sin and death entering thru adam, and thus the need for a man (Jesus) who does not have the fallen nature to become our savior.

You are misusing the word "true". Science uses explanations to explain facts. Our explanations are sometimes wrong but we continue to tweak those explanations based on the evidence/facts. Some of our scientific understanding 40 years ago was inaccurate, but it's safe to say that our understanding now is more accurate, although not perfect.

No, I believe the word true/truth should be defined as "reality as it exists" as opposed to "reality as we perceive/understand it". I believe the God has given us truth in His word, and that man has a tendency to define truth as he perceives it. Because we cannot perceive reality in many ways, our understanding of truth is flawed, and thus we must turn to God. I applaud science for all that it has done for our world, yet have a healthy skepticism for any acceptance of scientific "truth". Particularly when scientific "truth" is in direct contradiction to God's truth. I am not saying that science is bad or even wrong for taking a materialistic view since the tools of science are material, I am saying that science cannot perceive God, and often times the men doing science are UNWILLING to even entertain the concept of supernatural causes.

Just like a forensics investigator we may not be able to see them, but we can study the evidence and evolution really is the best explanation for what we see.

best explanation does not = true (see above definition)

I was a YEC but as I examined the evidence I was objectively led to accept evolution. Believe me, I wanted to remain a YEC and my pride kept me there for a little while after I saw the evidence in favor of evolution, but I had to accept what Gods creation was telling me through science, and now I can appreciate His handiwork for what it is instead of what I wanted it to be.

I would only caution you that what man/science believes to be true is flawed, while God's truth is NEVER flawed, only our understanding and interpretation of it.

Would God, whome scripture says cannot lie, clearly tell us that the earth sits on pillars? Sorry for answering a question with a question, but once you explain to me why God can tell us that the earth sits on pillars when it is actually not sitting on pillars without being a liar, then you can apply that same answer to your own question.

I saved this for last, since I think it is central to your argument. This is a reference to 1Sam 2:8 and several other verses if I am not mistaken. I believe God wrote the scriptures so that every generation would be able to understand it's meaning even if the reality of it is not knowable to them. All the 2nd century BC (or the 10th century AD) reader would have to do is ask him-herself is: what does a pillar do? Answer, it supports. We, as modern day people would simply have to ask ourselves: What does a pillar do? Answer, it supports. Now we may have a different understanding of what exactly supports the earth (I/E holds it together, keeps it from collapsing), but the image God gave was sufficient for us to know that God is ultimately the source of that. Does our scientific understanding of nature take away from this? No, not really. Did the lack of scientific understanding take away from this? No, not really. Understand?

 

[miamited]

Hi Shernren,

Well, again I'll throw my two cents in.

You asked:
In which case, isn't it valid for Christians to expect science to be able to detect the effects of a miracle such as Creation or the Flood?

I must be very careful with the wording you have used. 'isn't it valid for Christians to expect science to be able to detect...'

I understand that science does 'see' the effects of both. After all, as a believer in the inerrant word of God, I know that both of these events did occur. Therefore, whatever science 'sees' when studying the earth, it 'sees' the effects. The problem is not science being able to 'see' the effects, but rather science being able to 'explain' the effects. Like I said, I look up every night and see the stars in the heavens so I know that the effects of the creation are visible to both myself and all scientists, but again the issue really isn't about whether we can see the effects, but whether we can explain them.

Let me ask you a question if I may. Let's consider for a moment, you and I, that what I believe is correct. There was a flood, worldwide, that covered everything upon the face of the earth to a minimal depth of 20 feet at the highest point of land on the earth, what effects would you expect to see, now some 4,000 years removed, to verify that event, that you are unable to see today? I mean, specifically, what would you expect to find digging down in the dirt, or scaling the highest mountain peaks or wandering the valleys and meadows of the earth that would 'prove' to you that there was a real worldwide flood? Further, what would you expect to see, wandering all the earth and peering into the deepest recesses of space that would 'prove' the earth is only 6,000 years old?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Calminian]

In which case, isn't it valid for Christians to expect science to be able to detect the effects of a miracle such as Creation or the Flood?

Evidence of a flood, yes, and we have tons of evidence, such as sea creature fossils on the tallest of mountains.

The problem is, science can't justify a uniformitarian mechanistic cause for this in such a short timeline. Creation scientist disagree, but they're not as beholden to uniformitarianism. Personally, I think God was very involved in the entire process. I don't think it was just a simple pushing of the first domino and then hands off. I think God interacted supernaturally the entire time, controlling the entire process. Thus we see the affect, but the causes elude us from a uniformitarian framework.

Here's a great article that explains the problem with miracles and how they confuse those with anti-miracle assumptions.

Methods of the Creator

 

[miamited]

Hi Assyrian,

Hey, I'm not in the least bit concerned with the animals and I know that you are answering another poster who brought up this subject. Quite frankly, though, the basis of my understanding comes strictly from who Adam is. Is Adam the first man who lived 930 years and at the age of 130 years had a son named Seth? As far as I'm concerned the argument rests solely on putting to rest the issue of Adam. Once we study all that the Scriptures say about Adam, and we believe the Scriptures are the truth, then I find it hard to understand Adam as some allegory. God has told us in fairly specific language that Adam was the first person who was made by His direct creative talents. That this man lived 930 years and at the age of 130 years had a son named Seth. Seth then lived a total 912 years and had a son named Enosh. What follows is a very specific accounting of years of births and deaths beginning with a man named Adam whom God created.

So, as far as I am concerned, we need to first settle the discussion about who Adam was. Was he a real live breathing man or not? Once we settle that in favor that he was, then the rest falls pretty naturally into place for me. However, for those who are unwilling to settle for his being a real live breathing man, then my simple question goes back to, "Ok, fine, what is meant by the listing of the geneologies from Adam with specific years and names of the generations? Logically to me, if Adam is to be understood as some allegory of mankind, then God is somehow attempting to pull some deception or some slight of hand trick in telling us that this man lived exactly 930 years and accounts the geneologies as He does. Rather, for me, I find it more likely that God listed the geneologies of Adam for the express purpose of answering the questions about him that deny his actual existence as a real live breathing man.

How do you answer this one issue. Forget all the animals. Forget all the evolutionary 'theory'. Forget all the other noise and obfuscation that surrounds this issue. How do you explain God's telling us about a man named Adam and then listing out for us over a thousand years of geneology with specific names and years of life, if Adam is an allegory?

God bless you, friend.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[matthewgar]

Hi Matthew,

You wrote:
But don't we glorify god more by learning what is real, not what we want to be real? If you get to heaven and find out that evolution was right, and creationism was false and it's caused many people to go to hell, do you think following the belief blindly will get you in?

Well, as far as that supposition goes, what if it is the other way around? As Calminian has written, God has given us a very clear, concise and logical explanation of the creation, so it is, as far as I understand the Scriptures, much more likely that the creation account is true and the evolutionary account is false. As he also stated, the evolutionary account places death before sin and the Scriptures are clear, even in the the New Testament, that the wages of sin is 'death'. No, I'm sorry friend, and I understand that you mean well and are completely sincere in what you believe, but I stand opposed to such teaching.

Someone wrote on another thread that there couldn't have been days before the sun was placed in the heavens. That's just not true. What is a day? One full rotation of the earth, which today we measure as approximately 24 hours. Now, friend, consider that even before any other heavenly body was placed in the entire universe, as soon as God created the earth and it made one full rotation, with or without a sun, moon or stars, it was a day as we reconcile days. As far as we know, when God spoke the earth into existence it came on the scene spinning on its axis. It was perfect and it was good and in approximately 24 hours, as we reckon days, it would have made one full rotation and it would have passed the first day. The next full rotation would have been the second day and so on. There is actually nothing in the exact definition of a 'day' that accounts for there being a sun or moon to accord it as a 'day'.

You ask, don't we glorify God by learning the truth? Sure, but science is not the way to the truth. Jesus is! I am the way, the truth and the life. I want to believe exactly what Jesus believed. Nothing more. Nothing less.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

So when reality butts head with your interpetation it must be reality that is wrong, not that being human, you could be wrong? Again all of these explanations come down to forcing reality to fit into your interpetations of scripture, but you could be wrong about what the bible means. But the world and the reality in it is what it is. We could be wrong about our understanding of it, but what we see that points to evolution isn't wrong.

So we either side with what we see in reality, or warp our understanding of reality to the point where nothing is reasonable to believe to fit a fallable humans idea of the scriptures. To me thats simply trying to create a world that fits your beliefs, not the other way around.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi Assyrian,

Hey, I'm not in the least bit concerned with the animals and I know that you are answering another poster who brought up this subject. Quite frankly, though, the basis of my understanding comes strictly from who Adam is. Is Adam the first man who lived 930 years and at the age of 130 years had a son named Seth? As far as I'm concerned the argument rests solely on putting to rest the issue of Adam. Once we study all that the Scriptures say about Adam, and we believe the Scriptures are the truth, then I find it hard to understand Adam as some allegory. God has told us in fairly specific language that Adam was the first person who was made by His direct creative talents. That this man lived 930 years and at the age of 130 years had a son named Seth. Seth then lived a total 912 years and had a son named Enosh. What follows is a very specific accounting of years of births and deaths beginning with a man named Adam whom God created.

So, as far as I am concerned, we need to first settle the discussion about who Adam was. Was he a real live breathing man or not? Once we settle that in favor that he was, then the rest falls pretty naturally into place for me. However, for those who are unwilling to settle for his being a real live breathing man, then my simple question goes back to, "Ok, fine, what is meant by the listing of the geneologies from Adam with specific years and names of the generations? Logically to me, if Adam is to be understood as some allegory of mankind, then God is somehow attempting to pull some deception or some slight of hand trick in telling us that this man lived exactly 930 years and accounts the geneologies as He does. Rather, for me, I find it more likely that God listed the geneologies of Adam for the express purpose of answering the questions about him that deny his actual existence as a real live breathing man.

How do you answer this one issue. Forget all the animals. Forget all the evolutionary 'theory'. Forget all the other noise and obfuscation that surrounds this issue. How do you explain God's telling us about a man named Adam and then listing out for us over a thousand years of geneology with specific names and years of life, if Adam is an allegory?

God bless you, friend.
In Christ, Ted.

Hi Ted. The OP asked why creationism was so important to you. Having literal genealogies can hardly be the high point of YEC. Paul twice advised us to avoid genealogies because they just create arguments. Quite right too In terms of a literal Adam or even the genealogies and ages of the patriarchs, this has nothing to do with evolution, many TEs take Adam literally, and see him as federal head of the human race, or the first human to have a spirit breath by God, or the first to be truly human. Personally I don't, Adam is treated figuratively in the NT and I have yet to be convinced by any claims the NT treats him as a historical person. The lifespans of the patriarchs seem to be contradicted by Moses claim in Psalm 90 that the human lifespan is 70 or 80 years, not the 120-140 years people are supposed to have lived in Moses lifetime, suggesting the ages are figurative like many other numbers in scripture. I understand creationists can be are uncomfortable with allegory and metaphor and think it is deceptive of God to speak that way, but God did not seem to have any problem speaking this way, Jesus loved to speak in metaphors and parables and spent three years teaching disciples to understand.

 

[Calminian]

So when reality butts head with your interpetation it must be reality that is wrong, not that being human, you could be wrong? Again all of these explanations come down to forcing reality to fit into your interpetations of scripture, but you could be wrong about what the bible means. But the world and the reality in it is what it is. We could be wrong about our understanding of it, but what we see that points to evolution isn't wrong.

So we either side with what we see in reality, or warp our understanding of reality to the point where nothing is reasonable to believe to fit a fallable humans idea of the scriptures. To me thats simply trying to create a world that fits your beliefs, not the other way around.

If I may, Matthew, I would be curious how you define "reality." Remember, historical science is never actually what "we see" but rather what "we infer about the past" from what "we see in the present." Neither of us have actually seen the origins process.

Scientific inferences made about the past are based on a certain number of assumptions essential to the scientific method. One of these precludes historical miracles.

Do you believe in Christ's miracles? Well that butts heads with what we see today. Do you believe in Christ's resurrection? That also butts heads with what we see today. Same with the early creation miracles.

I'm not saying humans are infallible in interpreting scripture, but inferring the past from the present is also challenging, especially if acts of God were directly involved in the past. It's very difficult for me to think of a single historical miracle that would not distort inferences from the present. If I were to actually examine the wine Christ created (not knowing of the miracle) I would infer a completely false history of how it came to be based on what I see in the present. I would also infer it to be much older. I'll trust you see what I'm getting at.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it. To help me understand better I have two specific questions for you.

What does your view bring to the table that Christians with a figurative understanding are missing?

Do you think that, because of your YEC view, your walk with God is somehow different than those who have a figurative understanding of the creation account? (If so, how?)

I think the reason for this thread is spawned off the fact that you seemingly treat YECs like they are some sort of enigma that require understanding. There will always be OECs and YECs. There will always be advocates of either of those world views to varying degrees, some more adamant, some less. Your walk with God is not (nor should it be) affected regardless of whether you believe in old earth or young earth, whether you interpret symbolically or not.

On the contrary, I would scratch my head over the butchering that is done to the scriptures in order to fit in OE/TE world views.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Hi Ted. We seem to have come a far way from evolution undermining the gospel in your previous post. The OP asked why creationism was so important to you. Having literal genealogies can hardly be the high point of YEC. Paul twice advised us to avoid genealogies because they just create arguments. Quite right too In terms of a literal Adam or even the genealogies and ages of the patriarchs, this has nothing to do with evolution, many TEs take Adam literally, and see him as federal head of the human race, or the first human to have a spirit breath by God, or the first to be truly human. Personally I don't, Adam is treated figuratively in the NT and I have yet to be convinced by any claims the NT treats him as a historical person. The lifespans of the patriarchs seem to be contradicted by Moses claim in Psalm 90 that the human lifespan is 70 or 80 years, not the 120-140 years people are supposed to have lived in Moses lifetime, suggesting the ages are figurative like many other numbers in scripture. I understand you are uncomfortable with allegory and metaphor and think it is deceptive of God to speak that way, but God did not seem to have any problem speaking this way, Jesus loved to speak in metaphor and parable and expected his disciples to get used to it.

Paul told us to avoid genealogies for the sake of avoiding arguments, that doesn't mean they are false or incorrect.

 

[miamited]

Hi Matt,

You responded:
So when reality butts head with your interpetation it must be reality that is wrong, not that being human, you could be wrong?

Whoa Nellie! Let's get a definition of what you mean by 'reality'. As far as I understand the word, 'reality' is what we're living. It is the understanding of how the 'reality' that we live today came to be that is at issue here.

You also wrote:
We could be wrong about our understanding of it, but what we see that points to evolution isn't wrong.

Man, you sure have a way of assuming the 'facts' that are not in evidence. I agree that what we see isn't 'wrong'. What we see are hard facts. We see fossils in the earth, we see stars billions of miles away. The evidence we see isn't 'wrong', if you can call evidence 'wrong'. Again the issue that, to me, is wrong are the assumptions of what that evidence means.

It's a lot like being a detective. When a crime is committed there is certain evidence. The detective takes that evidence and formulates a possible cause. He may be right or he may not be. As he gathers more evidence, then he may find that this additional evidence points to some other cause than what he first suspected. This second cause may turn out to be wrong also, but usually with good detective skills and enough evidence a perpetrator can be found.

That's just on the small scale of a crime that is committed within the days of his life. Now, the detecting that needs to be done on something as grand a scale as the beginnings of the universe is greatly expanded and then add to that all the evidence and the event that we are trying to solve happened long before we lived. Then add to that that no matter how hard you look there can't be found any eyewitnesses from which to gather any testimony about the cause or the assumed results for what we believe.

Let me, through this detective model give an example. Suppose the detective latches on to a suspect. He writes down a timeline for the suspects movements around the time of the crime. He then goes and finds witnesses that can confirm what the suspect was doing an hour before the crime or even during the time that the crime was committed. This testimony may release the person as a suspect or may confirm the person as a suspect.

In the 'science' of determining our beginnings, there are no witnesses. None! All we have to work with are cause and effect evidence that we may make certain 'assumptions' about. Determining what the evidence 'really' means is the hard issue. Look at evolution. It is believed, in it's basic form, that every creature on the face of the earth today, has somehow evolved from some single spark of life created by some electrical or gaseous mixture billions of years ago. The picture that is painted is almost like the myth of the Frankenstein monster. Some electrical storm somehow sent a shock into some inanimate mixture that garnered the spark of life. Ok, let's go with that.

So, today we have, how many, certainly thousands of separate and clearly distinct life forms. I'm not talking about all the different colors of birds, but rather birds as opposed to giraffes as opposed to lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Then we have man. Now, evolutionists hypothesize that man either came from some sort of monkey creature or that man and monkeys came from some earlier creature. I don't care either way and you'll see why it doesn't matter as we move on. Now, everyone agrees that it's not like on May 3, 50,000,0000 years ago there was this previous creature and then on May 4, 50,000,000 years ago there was a man born to this creature.

No, the basic premise is that on May 3, 50,000,000 years ago there was this previous creature and then on May 4, 50,000,000 years ago there was a progeny born to that creature that had just a slight change in the shape of his skull, almost imperceptible, but a change none the less. Then on Oct. 1, 49,000,000 years ago the lineage of this new creature begat a young that was again just slightly different again, and so on until lo and behold after 50,000 years there was an entirely new creature. Now, every evolutionist agrees that the fossil record is lacking in these subtle change creatures. We have no fossils that show this creature of 50,000,000 years ago and then another that shows the exact same creature with just a nearly imperceptible subtle change in his structure and then another and another and another and so forth that carries us to the 'new' creature.

Friend, all we have are fossils of different looking animals that are completely different from any other. We have no bird that has two wings and a small lump growing under it's wing. Then another bird with two wings where the lump is just a little more pronounced. And then another fossil of some bird with two wings that has an even slightly more pronounced appendage that then leads us to another bird with two wings that shows an appendage that is slightly different, etc. Hopefully I don't have to go through what must have probably been at least thousands of changes from the original bird to, say, a lizard or fish or whatever it is believed evolved from the birds or vice a versa.

Friend, if there are thousands of different creatures on the earth today, then we should logically have billions of fossils that show some of these subtle changes. We don't have one!!!!! Not ONE!!!!!!! Not A Single ONE!!!!! So, I can only hope that you can see and understand that the very best evidence of evolution, is missing! Why is the very best evidence of evolution missing if it is a 'fact' or your word 'reality' of our history? And based on the number of such fossils that there should be according to the 'theory', they shouldn't be missing. We should have them in nearly every shovel of dirt we take up. WHY AREN'T THEY THERE?

Could it be that the entire 'theory' is wrong? I mean, come on, put your thinking cap on the top of your head! If, the basic theory of evolution is the 'truth' of how we got here, why don't we have what should be the most prevelant and best evidence of it? Every evolutionist that has ever discussed this issue has no answer. The best they can come up with is that we just haven't found it yet. Like there's only going to be one fossil that's going to show these subtle changes in literally the thousands of animals we have walking upon the earth today, and we haven't found that one yet. Come on, friend, get a dose of 'reality' for yourself. Evolution is a theory and a poorly supported one at that, based on the physical record that you so gloriously support.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Assyrian]

Paul told us to avoid genealogies for the sake of avoiding arguments, that doesn't mean they are false or incorrect.

I was talking about the value of the genealogies in our walk with God rather than their accuracy. That is what the thread is about. (Though I have been know to discuss how reliable or literal they are too )

 

[miamited]

Hello Assyrian,

You responded:
Having literal genealogies can hardly be the high point of YEC.

Uh, yea, it can. Can you give me a logical and reasonable explanation for why the Scriptures declare that Adam, at 130 years old had a son named Seth, and then lived 930 years?

You see, my friend, because if you can't give an alternate reason for this one little piece of Scripture, then you have to change your story to Adam being a real live person. If you change your story to Adam being a real live person, then the introduction of sin, must be true. If you believe the introduction of sin is true, then you must believe and that God's curse of death upon people started with that sin, then you must believe that there were certainly no people before Adam.

Yes, my friend, that one little statement that I claim God put there for just such discussions as these going on here, makes a difference in what we believe. Then when you begin to follow all those geneologies out you begin to understand how old the earth really is. It answers a lot of questions if you can just figure out why God said that Adam, at 130 years had a son named Seth, and then lived 930 years.

BTW the psalm of Moses gives a generalization of age, thus he says seventy - eighty years. However, just as today our life expectancy is pegged at the mid 70's or so, there are some who live to be over 100 years old.

So, then, you don't believe that Moses wrote that passage or is it that you believe Moses was wrong?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Papias]

Ted, which of the two contradictory geneologies from Adam to David is correct, that in 1 Cr, or the one in Mt?

Is one figurative and one literal? Are they both figurative? If they are both literal, then how can the contradict each other?

Thanks-

Papias

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Ted, which of the two contradictory geneologies from Adam to David is correct, that in 1 Cr, or the one in Mt?

Is one figurative and one literal? Are they both figurative? If they are both literal, then how can the contradict each other?

Thanks-

Papias

A genealogy is a genealogy, what purpose is there in asserting a genealogy is figurative?

It is a mistake to assume either of the genealogies are meant to be exhaustive or "perfect" accounts. The differences arise simply due to how they were accounted by different writers. It could very well be certain generations were skipped or that different names were used for minor figures. The major figures (Abraham/David) are present in all of them, no conflict there. None of the genealogies are figurative, for goodness sake are we to assume that some or all of the people in one of the genealogies were "symbolic"? That doesn't even make sense. I do not understand what is the point with all this talk of "symbolism" where it doesn't belong.

 

[Papias]

Ted wrote:

Friend, if there are thousands of different creatures on the earth today, then we should logically have billions of fossils that show some of these subtle changes. We don't have one!!!!! Not ONE!!!!!!! Not A Single ONE!!!!! So, I can only hope that you can see and understand that the very best evidence of evolution, is missing! Why is the very best evidence of evolution missing if it is a 'fact' or your word 'reality' of our history? And based on the number of such fossils that there should be according to the 'theory', they shouldn't be missing. We should have them in nearly every shovel of dirt we take up. WHY AREN'T THEY THERE?

Funny how nearly identical statements come up on two different threads. Here is my response to the other one, which works well here:

Um, first, you need to undestand the scientific field of taphonomy - which shows (with real experimental data) what most of us already know, which is that nearly all animal bodies decompose to nothing within a matter of years, bones and all. Since everything decays, a fossil record that shows nothing would be reasonable.

Luckily, we have literally thousands of transitional fossils. You wrote "We don't have one!!!!! Not ONE!!!!!!! Not A Single ONE!!!!! ". What a massive falsehood. Here are just some of them: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 and

and even more are found here:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

In fact, geologists know about these many, many transitional fossils, as this quote shows:

Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate paleontologist. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology. Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)


At the same time, there are independant lines of evidence supporting evolution from genetics, anatomy, physiology, molecular biology, biogeography, embryology, and more. Because of all this evidence, evolution would be established beyond a shadow of a doubt even if the fossil record was a complete blank, and as we just saw, it's far from being a blank.

Papias

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Ted wrote:



Funny how nearly identical statements come up on two different threads. Here is my response to the other one, which works well here:

Um, first, you need to undestand the scientific field of taphonomy - which shows (with real experimental data) what most of us already know, which is that nearly all animal bodies decompose to nothing within a matter of years, bones and all. Since everything decays, a fossil record that shows nothing would be reasonable.

Luckily, we have literally thousands of transitional fossils. You wrote "We don't have one!!!!! Not ONE!!!!!!! Not A Single ONE!!!!! ". What a massive falsehood. Here are just some of them: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 and

and even more are found here:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

In fact, geologists know about these many, many transitional fossils, as this quote shows:

Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate paleontologist. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology. Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)


At the same time, there are independant lines of evidence supporting evolution from genetics, anatomy, physiology, molecular biology, biogeography, embryology, and more. Because of all this evidence, evolution would be established beyond a shadow of a doubt even if the fossil record was a complete blank, and as we just saw, it's far from being a blank.

Papias

And like I said, the fossil record does not remotely prove UCD anywhere near to the degree as it should. If these mechanisms that accomplished UCD are true (and assuming old earth), the result should not be a collection of some thousands.

 

[Calminian]

A genealogy is a genealogy, what purpose is there in asserting a genealogy is figurative?

It is a mistake to assume either of the genealogies are meant to be exhaustive or "perfect" accounts. The differences arise simply due to how they were accounted by different writers. It could very well be certain generations were skipped or that different names were used for minor figures. The major figures (Abraham/David) are present in all of them, no conflict there. None of the genealogies are figurative, for goodness sake are we to assume that some or all of the people in one of the genealogies were "symbolic"? That doesn't even make sense. I do not understand what is the point with all this talk of "symbolism" where it doesn't belong.

Exactly, HHC. Genealogies were very important to the ancients for all kinds of reasons, some good some perhaps not so good. Your family line could be extremely valuable, and everyone has multiple family lines. Today in america, if you can trace your roots back to an indian tribe it could mean special opportunities and entitlements. Kind of the same way then. Of course that wouldn't be the case if everyone just made them up or put super heroes like ironman in them. The fact that they skipped generations is evidence they did not make them up, for they wanted to highlight certain prominent individuals, and often did so by skipping through the lesser important individuals. This was an understood and accepted practice. Once you get that, all the ostensible genealogy problems disappear.

Now what Paul addressed was the church using their genealogies to be divisive. In the church, it's not about heritage, it's about your relationship with Christ. That's the only relationship that counts. It didn't matter if you could trace your roots to the most powerful kings on earth, Christ is the king of kings. The only genealogy that really matters now is His, and Matthew and Luke took up that issue in their gospels.

Rest assured Paul was not trying to tell us, "hey, don't worry about the Genesis genealogies now. They're just allegory!"

 

[philadiddle]

Friend, if there are thousands of different creatures on the earth today, then we should logically have billions of fossils that show some of these subtle changes. We don't have one!!!!! Not ONE!!!!!!! Not A Single ONE!!!!!

Well, Lucy is just one example. It is off topic in this thread though so feel free to join my other thread about it and explain to me why I am incorrect about it being a transitional form.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7503000/

For a video that sums up the argument for transitional forms quite nicely watch the following video.

YouTube - 9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

So, I can only hope that you can see and understand that the very best evidence of evolution, is missing! Why is the very best evidence of evolution missing if it is a 'fact' or your word 'reality' of our history? And based on the number of such fossils that there should be according to the 'theory', they shouldn't be missing. We should have them in nearly every shovel of dirt we take up. WHY AREN'T THEY THERE?

Transitional forms is one of the weakest forms of evidence, but even as the weakest form of evidence it is still very strong, and there are many many examples in so many lineages. There are many transitional forms that have been found, but we should start a new thread about it. If you want to know what the best evidence for evolution is we should look at multiple independent phylogenetic trees of ancestry.

 

[Greg1234]

I do not understand what is the point with all this talk of "symbolism" where it doesn't belong.

For Darwin. Always.