 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Confused over "Young Earth Creationist" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/10/2004 2:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | Scott said,
Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org) and Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) are the biggest-name players - they are well-funded conservative Christian apologetic organizations focused on discrediting and denying evolution and basically all of mainstream prehistory. No-one in the real scientific world gives them any credence - indeed, though their arguments often look convincing at first, every one I have ever chased down (from rebuttal to counter-rebuttal to etc ad nauseum) has been inconclusive at best or invalid at worst. But in the conservative Christian subculture they are very influential." (Bold my emphasis)
"No-one in the real scientific community gives them any credence." Really, now!
Best to first realize that not one writer of the ENTIRE Bible ever, ever looks upon the Genesis account as being myth, legend or otherwise, and there's quite a gap of time, as well as changing of the cultures, by the time Jesus comes on the scene; so the argument that "the ancients didn't have an approach to truth as having to be literal" simply does not hold. What ancients? Moses, Isaiah, Nehemiah, Jesus, Paul? They all had no concept of truth being expressed as the way it happened? Not hardly.
God made man and woman. They didn't evolve to some point where God finally said "Ah, they've evolved far enough now where we'll call them mankind; the rest were pre-mankind, some sort of in-between the apes, fish or other evolving species." You not only do not see this kind of langauge in the Bible, but you see nothing--I repeat: nothing--in Scripture suggesting the creation account is to be interpreted as such.
Science has made a laughing stock of itself over and over in it's "We've found the missing link" and other kinds of so-called evolutionary proofs. I'm sorry, Karen, that you have been told that "no-one" gives credence to those scientists and scholars who believe in the creation account as reads in its simplicity and consistency throughout the entire Bible. That simply is not true, and it's most definitely not true that "all" of the evidence for the flood and other Biblical accounts is so lacking in support that we would be fools to believe in these accounts as literal. Spend some time yourself on answersingenesis.org and other young-earth creation Web sites and see for yourself.
Finally, if God had to have communicated consistent truth in Scripture about something so important (e.g., how mankind came to be, that he is made in God's image, that there's a distinction between him and the animal kingdom), how else could He have communicated this other than to say it as it is? Scripture states that mankind was specifically and uniquely made. He did, however, suddenly come to have the image of God. He didn't evolve his morality, sense of right and wrong, or any other distinct characteristics of what makes him like God in so many ways ("like God," in that man exhibits traits that God has and has given him).
It's either science says (and that has never been able to be trusted because we discover new things that re-shape our previous understanding and because of the deliberate fraud that has often been taughted as "Here is truth!"), or God's word says--God's word from beginning to end, consistent in its message through all cultural shifts.
Take your choice; there is no room (from Scripture's point of view) for both views to be true. You may not believe the Bible's account, but there's no room to say, "Well, what they were really saying was ..." No, it doesn't work that way. It never has.
For sticking to the Biblical message from Genesis to Revelation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 2/10/2004 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
It's either science says (and that has never been able to be trusted because we discover new things that re-shape our previous understanding and because of the deliberate fraud that has often been taughted as "Here is truth!"), or God's word says--God's word from beginning to end, consistent in its message through all cultural shifts.
Take your choice; there is no room (from Scripture's point of view) for both views to be true. You may not believe the Bible's account, but there's no room to say, "Well, what they were really saying was ..." No, it doesn't work that way. It never has.
For sticking to the Biblical message from Genesis to Revelation,
Starkman
Well said! Amen!
Jim | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 2/10/2004 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | With all respect, Keith (Starkman), you have just provided Karen a fine display - an "Exhibit A" - of the young-earthers' simplistic "either-or", "us or them", "where will you stand: with God or the world" mentality. I am disappointed to see this after our previous discussions. You may disagree with the interpretation of Genesis I've supported here, but it is quite another thing to come out as polemically against mainstream science as you have.
In any case, Karen will find that, even if she finds my view of Genesis unacceptable, there are others that still reconcile with mainstream science - concordism, for example, and with respect to Genesis 1 in particular, the framework view (which is complementary with what I've been advocating, but not the same - one can reject the possibility of mythological infusion in Genesis 1 but still support the literary framework interpretation). She can take her pick among those instead, without having to sacrifice harmony with science.
I'll say just a couple of additional things about your response, Keith. First, I concede I exagerated when I wrote (regarding young-earthers), "No-one in the real scientific world gives them any credence..." The real state of affairs is that, statistically speaking, almost no-one in the scientific community gives them any credence. While there are probably many hundreds, up to perhaps a thousand, young-earth-leaning scientists in the USA, there are tens of thousands of their colleagues who accept the mainstream consensus conclusions. Young earth creationism has about as much support in the scientific community as Al Sharpton has had among the Democratic electorate (so far - though I suppose that for young earth creationism, like Al, there is always hope - at least neither shows any sign of folding yet). That is a simple demographic fact.
For just one demonstration of this landslide, see "Project Steve" (eg, at http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18). To date over 400 US scientists have signed a statement declaring their agreement that the evidence supports biological common ancestry and evolution. Furthermore, every single one of those scientists is named Steve - or Steven, Stephen, Stephanie, etc. In other words, scientists named Steve alone (who are about 1% of the total population) outnumber all the science faculty at Liberty University, Bob Jones University, Institute for Creation Research graduate school, etc, put together - indeed outnumber all the scientist signers on any creationist statement ever put together. (The exact number of Steves is ever-growing; for today's count, see the "Steve-o-meter" at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html).
Second, Keith, I'm afraid you vastly overstate the significance of science's falsified hypotheses in the past, in implying that they discredit the basic evolutionary paradigm. They no more have that effect than the Alar-on-apples scare back in the 1990's has the effect of invalidating the basic paradigms of organic chemistry and environmental toxicology. They are mosquito bites on a horse - every one of those bites, by the way, having been falsified by mainstream scientists within the community, thus further demonstrating the general validity of the scientific method as practiced within the professional community.
On interpretation of Genesis, I think we've gone over that enough before. To sum up, Keith, all I can say is that I think you deductively impose upon the text your modern expectations of what any God worth his salt should and would have done in inspiring it. You neglect the archaeological and historical evidence of how people in the ancient near Eastern world actually communicated the Big Ideas, and you neglect the biblical evidence of what most concerns God and thus whether he would have cared to correct those conventions of the day, whether in patriarchal times or Jesus' times.
That's it. I will still pull together that reading list for you Keith (as time allows - it seems whatever time I have to spend on this is spent posting into this forum instead :-)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/10/2004 10:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Scott (say, Karen, turn your head for a minute if you would, because I'm gonna slap the you-know-what outta Scott, and then he's probably gonna kick me so hard I'll think sucking air has taken on a new meaning!),
OK, now wait a minute ...
quote:
With all respect, Keith (Starkman), you have just provided Karen a fine display - an "Exhibit A" - of the young-earthers' simplistic "either-or", "us or them", "where will you stand: with God or the world" mentality.
And then quote:
You may disagree with the interpretation of Genesis I've supported here, but it is quite another thing to come out as polemically against mainstream science as you have.
First, your interpretation of Genesis, as you've stated, is with the acceptance that what's said in Genesis is quite literal in its language; you contend, however, that this isn't at all what the author meant to convey. I'm simply making it clear that that the literal meaning IS the interpretation. No monkeying (HA! Monkey! See, I can't get around the evolution issue no matter how hard I try!) with the meaning of the text, as none of the rest of the Biblical writers did. There is, if anything, an extraction of the mythological contrasting greatly with surrounding nations (we've talked about this lots, haven't we!). Culture to culture, the same interpretation is held throughout the entire Bible.
Scott, you know well that the similarities in the Mosaic reading of Genesis verses the surrounding cultures similarities are far, far removed from each other--the myths having impossible feats by the gods, fates, men and unrealistic animal derivatives. The Genesis account, on the other hand is very matter-of-fact and straight to the point; God did this, that and the rest. Very plausible for an omnipotent God, with no help needed from mythological induction. What similarities that are present among Genesis and the accounts absolutely does not support the conclusion that Genesis is yet another attempt at myth.
quote:
For just one demonstration of this landslide, see "Project Steve" (eg, at http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18). To date over 400 US scientists have signed a statement declaring their agreement that the evidence supports biological common ancestry and evolution.
I can probably find a roster of a ton of atheist on record stating there is no god. You can reason the rest from here, I'm sure. Sometimes numbers mean little. In this case, I'm willing to bet that numbers mean little. Its the perspective one approaches the data that influences one toward evolution or creation. It's been proven that fossils can form in as short as 50 years. It's been proven that rock formations formed in as little time as it take to blow the top off a volcano can show dating figures that are way off from the time the event happened.
Now, I'm not expert here, but I think it's clear that just because someone interprets the data as coming from an evolutional framework doesn't mean they're necessarily right, great numbers of scientists supporting the conclusion or no great numbers supporting it. Yes, I think they mean well, but I'm sorry, some of the rebuttals I've read are clear-cut enough to cause one to say, "Hmm, maybe it's not as cut and dry as we're being told." Please, Scott, it's just not fair for you, a non-scientifically trained researcher, to say that the rebuttals of those who are well-trained can be very imaginative, stubborn and polemical in dealing with the myriad of evidence, if by this you mean that to defend in a vigorous manner, as Paul often did in the book of Acts, is wrong or makes one's interpretation inaccurate.
quote:
I'm afraid you vastly overstate the significance of science's falsified hypotheses in the past, in implying that they discredit the basic evolutionary paradigm.
No, I do not overstate the significance of science's falsified hypotheses in the past. I was very accurate wtih regard to one issue in particular: "We have the missing link." You know yourself how many times the so-called fossil was found that solved it all, that "proved" that man evolved. A short jaunt over to Answers will show the inaccuracies and fraud in these past hallmark discoveries! Nothing new, it is.
Finally, quote:
To sum up, Keith, all I can say is that I think you deductively impose upon the text your modern expectations of what any God worth his salt should and would have done in inspiring it. You neglect the archaeological and historical evidence of how people in the ancient near Eastern world actually communicated the Big Ideas, and you neglect the biblical evidence of what most concerns God and thus whether he would have cared to correct those conventions of the day, whether in patriarchal times or Jesus' times.
A deductive interpretation is more valid, in my opinion, than an inductive approach; the text leads one to believe in a literal interpretation; the surrounding cultural beliefs being pushed to the side in view of God--THE ONE, TRUE, REAL GOD--speaking, and with absolutely no reason to mythologize what He said. One simply cannot assume that the matter-of-fact and literal genre of the account is myth. You just can't, Scott! (I mean, you can if you wish, but it's such a stretch to do so that I'm not willing to concede the stretch.)
Further, Any God worth his salt WOULD be quite clear about truth; truth that is simple and clear to understand (big issues or no big issues). "On the second day, God created ...." But you say no, it can't be that way. It must be that there's myth here. It can't be that God has said it the way it is and the way it reads. No, it's got to be that the surrounding cultures influenced the writer--probably not Moses (though Jesus refered to the book as having been written by Moses)--to work with the material he had from other nations.
Come on, Scott. The account screams against everything of mythological interpretation, unless one approaches the account with that presupposition. Presupps aren't bad, but let's at least have more than "the surrounding cultures thought in terms of myth" to justify playing with the straight and forward meaning of the text. It demands we come to know something of the God who both made the world and made mankind in His image ... or is that, too, just a myth?
Finally, in regard to scientific evidence for a young-earth vs. old-earth (and, well, evolutionary) perspective of the world, yes, I'll definitely take to heart your list of references.
Got to go!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/10/2004 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | I have GOT to remember to do my posts offline first. I hate trying to edit after I've post. Sheesh. (Yes, I'm posting to myself. What's the problem?!)
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/10/2004 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Incidentally, from the site Scott noted in reference to "Project Steve" www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18, this is the statement at issue in which the scientists have come to concensus:
"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. (emphasis Keith's)
As I said, I could probably find a roster of atheists who will attest on record that there's no god. And lo, essentially, this is one of them! This site isn't a call for teaching real science in the classroom, as the site elsewhere purports it wishes to do, it is call to eliminate the idea that there is a god and that He could have had anything to do with the creation of this world: atheism! It won't do to mention that there may be "evangelical Christians" as members of this list; the premise of the site is far from being a neutral-religious affair. You who are reading this, go there and see for yourself. The main site is www.ncseweb.org.
Until, well, tomorrow! Time: I hate it sometimes!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 2/10/2004 2:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Keith (Starkman),
Well, I don't know where to start. In no particular order:
- For starters: if you can't see the religious neutrality in the "Project Steve" statement, and the National Center for Science Education's mission, and instead see atheistic agitation, then its no wonder we're not going to get anywhere.
- Genesis 1 is of a semi-liturgical genre not closely paralleled in style elsewhere in the ancient world - you are correct insofar as that goes. But its specific physical elements as such - ie primordial waters, darkness, and formless earth; waters above and below; evidently solid sky; etc - clearly reflect the science of the day.
- As for the rest of Genesis 2-11: not only do the specific physical elements reflect traditions of the time (man formed from earth, flood, vast lifespans, etc) but they cry out for recognition as storied history, ie legend: an anthropomorphized God, personalized serpent, fruit and trees of life and knowledge of good and evil, etiologies (eg of woman from man's side, and of serpentine locomotion), sex and procreation between divine/semi-divine beings and women, etc.
- In short, what you say reads matter-of-factly as historical narrative, does not, in my opinion and the opinion of many other believers (perhaps none acceptable to you, but ah well). And I suggest that unless one has a presuppositional commitment to the historicity of Genesis 1-11, no-one would recognize those chapters as modern-style historical chronicle.
- This is not deductive special-pleading, nor is it itself presuppositional; but instead it is inductive and inferential, from the evidence of the text interpretered according to what we know about the culture and time. You can say it is matter-of-factly historical, but its not - not in the same sense as literature produced by modern historians.
- Where Genesis 1-11 bears no relation to the myths of the time, however, is in its theological revelation. In Genesis, there is one god, not many; everything besides God in creation is creaturely and subject, not divine; creation is good, not evil; it is intentional from the beginning, not an accident or afterthought; people are all in God's image, not hierarchically ranked according to race or status (divine king versus lowly commoner); man's rule over woman is curse and not created order; people are the crown of God's creation, not slaves of the gods; etc, etc, etc. This is the revelation, and the transport mechanism for it is the legendary conventions of the time.
- Certainly the human authors and readers likely thought of Genesis 1-11 as actual history, in the same way as those who heard Jesus thought of the mustard seed as the smallest seed, and the realm of Sheba as being literally at the ends of the earth. But God hijacked these mistaken understandings and used them to transport theological teaching, that being that which matters most - scientific correctness not mattering at all to God (for otherwise why is there no clear, ahead-of-its-time scientific revelation anywhere in Scripture).
- And all this is no more false on God's part than we are when we condescend to little children. I think your problem is that you don't respect legend as a valid literary genre in its own right, for certain cultures in their own right; you instead measure it by its validity in today's modern culture, and see in it only false history, foolishness and lies. Critical realist though I am, the postmodernists have (in my opinion) a very good case against that kind of "cultural imperialism". Why should we think that God prefers the ways of our culture over theirs, when what our culture's norms are good at (communicating factual history, for example) were neither the conventions of the time nor the heart of God?
- And anyway - even if you do think all this ahistorical interpretation of Genesis is bonkers, it is not directly related to the science of evolution. It is merely one line of reasoning for harmonizing Christian faith in Genesis with science, and the overall harmonization scheme takes its support from the convergence of evidence - ie not just the evidence from Genesis, outlined above, that it is not meant by God for us to understand as plainly literal history today, but also the evidence from science that it cannot be interpreted that way.
- And make no mistake - that scientific evidence is very strong. It amazes me to see creationists creatively handwave away the consensus work of hundreds of thousands of professionals, working over generations, from all nations, religious faiths, political ideologies, etc, and with no common presuppositions other than the same ones you and I use to troubleshoot a burned-out lightbulb. No one would ever do this in any other field of science, but when that science crosses our notions of how God must have intended to inspire scripture, all bets are off.
- Finally (since this is getting long again), all the objections you listed against science in your preceding post were insubstantial. For example, the analogy between the opinion of scientists on prehistory and the tautological opinion of atheists on atheism doesn't work. Radiometric dating methods employ cross-checks and safeguards to defend against massive anomoly - with the fact that most dates converge to the same pattern, and most anomolies have excellent scientific explanations, showing the effectiveness of those methods (volcano anecdotes notwithstanding). And so on - but I won't go into any more detail here.
I think that's enough said on my part. If you want to explore with me here in detail one very specific, fresh creationist claim, whether on science or on interpretation of scripture - as I used to do with Sean G, if you remember him - you may suggest it and I'll respond. Otherwise I'll let you have the last word.
Regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/10/2004 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Keith and Scott for challenging me. I gotta say I'm tracking with Scott on this one. I still have questions. But I at least don't think my faith is fundamentally undermined should it be outright proven beyond all doubt that evolution is true.
However, Scott, you did say this: "In Genesis, there is one god, not many; everything besides God in creation is creaturely and subject, not divine; creation is good, not evil; it is intentional from the beginning, not an accident or afterthought."
How do you affirm the "chance" so crucial to evolution and also affirm that humanity's existence (i.e., humanity's evolution) is "intentional"? Miller concedes this point and admits that God created with no guarantee that anything would come along that qualified as a partner for relationship with God. For all God knew at the time, the universe might never evolve into anything "personal" at all. God would not compromise the integrity of creation by manhandling it (Miller's point) so as to guarntee that WE got produced. We might not have been. As I understand evolution, if we repeated the whole deal from the start with the exact same conditions, the outcome would almost certainly look very different. God might not have had anything or anybody "personal" in creation at all.
I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on the divine image as well. Of what does it consist (personhood? morality? reason? all of the above?) and would you offer an opinion on it's origin? I mean, does God grant is whamo style to a man and a woman (or to a generation of men and women)? Or does God's image "evolve" in us as well. If the latter, how can God guarantee the outcome?
OK, I'll stop my intellectual slobbering,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 2/11/2004 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
You asked me:
quote:
However, Scott, you did say this: "In Genesis, there is one god, not many; everything besides God in creation is creaturely and subject, not divine; creation is good, not evil; it is intentional from the beginning, not an accident or afterthought."
How do you affirm the "chance" so crucial to evolution and also affirm that humanity's existence (i.e., humanity's evolution) is "intentional"? Miller concedes this point and admits that God created with no guarantee that anything would come along that qualified as a partner for relationship with God. For all God knew at the time, the universe might never evolve into anything "personal" at all. God would not compromise the integrity of creation by manhandling it (Miller's point) so as to guarntee that WE got produced. We might not have been. As I understand evolution, if we repeated the whole deal from the start with the exact same conditions, the outcome would almost certainly look very different. God might not have had anything or anybody "personal" in creation at all.
Miller also affirms (I've read his book too - FYI I've reviewed it at amazon.com) that the way in which we reconcile "chance" and "purpose" in biological evolution is the same way in which we reconcile "chance" and "purpose" in any other providential event or process. Evolution can be seen as both "random" and "purposeful" in the same way that the spontaneous remission of cancer in a loved one can be seen as both "random" and "purposeful". Such words as "random", "natural", and "chance" in the language of science refer merely to being unpredictable and unpredetermined on the basis of any known scientific theory, in both practice and principle. Thus evolution is "random" in the same way that quantum processes are "random" and the weather is "random". Yet these are not ontological uses of the words "random", "natural", or "chance". Ontologically, those of us who believe in a sovereign God who exercises his providence through scientifically "natural", "random", and "chance" processes can see purpose and even design (ie thoughtful conceptualization) behind those processes. Everyone who has ever prayed regarding the weather (ie to lift drought or a storm) and read God's response out of the weather that follows, has implicitly agreed with this.
Miller gives an excellent (and biblical, though I don't think he goes into that) example of this. Scientifically, that I am even here is an utterly random and natural happening. If a particular sperm cell of my father's had not fertilized a particular egg cell of my mother's, Scott Jorgenson would not exist today. And that meeting of that sperm (out of millions) with that egg (out of hundreds) was, scientifically, a natural and chance event. It was natural, in that the conception process has been studied spectacularly (as we all know, those of us who've seen the videos from the experiments done, for example), and each basic step in the process has been found to be explainable by reference to preceding conditions and scientific theory. And it was random, in that no known scientific theory would have made it possible to predict my conception in advance. But still Christians have always affirmed that despite this, God, in some way (I'm trying to be broad enough to include both open and traditional theism here :-), thoughtfully conceived of me and created me and in fact knew me - something that is biblically supported, eg, in Psalms 139:13 ("For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb", NRSV).
In fact, working backward from my conception, my existence becomes even more remarkable but natural - and yet in ways that Christians have often affirmed as providential. The stage for my conception would not even have been set had my mother and father not met, utterly by "chance", in a grocery store in Denver in the early 1960's. Each step in the chain of events that led them to be in that same place at that same time was natural, and contingent on similarly "natural" and "random" preceding events. And yet most of us who believe, and are fortunate to have loved ones, credit God in some way for bringing them into our lives.
Now, does this mean (analogous to Miller's reasoning), that if we were to repeat the 20th century all over again, my mother and father would still have met in sufficiently the same way, such that eventually the particular sperm and egg cells that led to me would have met? Miller asserts not. I think it is a hopelessly philosophical question - untestable and thus ultimately solipsist. We can only say that there is nothing in the scientific theories by which we understand and predict natural events and processes, that suggest this kind of strong teleology. In fact, so far as those scientific theories are inherently capable of going, they indicate that natural events and processes of the kind that led to my creation are so contingent and random that the scientific answer would have to be "no, if the 20th century were started all over again, Scott Jorgenson would not exist". But who knows what might ultimately lie behind the scenes in the will of God, indetectable to our human critical/scientific methods? Open and traditional theists can debate that one. I'll stay neutral.
So, anyway, the seeming tension between the naturalness and randomness of evolution, and the sovereignty of God, can be resolved in whatever way (eg an understanding of providence) we Christians have always recognized God in the world. This is not to say that understanding providence is an easy problem - but it is to say that evolution brings nothing to the definition of that problem which wasn't already there.
You also asked:
quote:
I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on the divine image as well. Of what does it consist (personhood? morality? reason? all of the above?) and would you offer an opinion on it's origin? I mean, does God grant is whamo style to a man and a woman (or to a generation of men and women)? Or does God's image "evolve" in us as well. If the latter, how can God guarantee the outcome?
On the nature of the divine image - what does it consist of - I don't have any particular view and haven't studied it much. As an amateur, I would grant any and all of what you suggested (personhood, conscience, reason) so long as a few caveats are recognized. First, that they are qualities which constitute the divine image even in their potentiality (not just their actualization). Otherwise we'd be saying that people in which those qualities are less actualized, eg infants, are not imagebearers - which seems unbiblical and offensive to common-sense. Second, we need to recognize that the scientific study of animal behavior has discovered certain behaviors in certain animal populations which are at least externally suggestive of rudimentary reasoning. We must not be too full of ourselves in identifying the image of God, lest we cast the net more broadly than might be biblical.
I would furthermore be open to understandings of the divine image that go beyond those you listed. These understandings see the image not so much in what we have - reason, conscience, a sense of "I" - but what we do (ie are appointed to do and are at least potentially capable of doing). For example, perhaps the image is relational: the image is man's capability to have personal relationship with God. Or perhaps the image is functional: the image is man's appointment to serve God and have dominion over the world in God's stead. These understandings might be less problematic than ones which see the image as being in some attribute we mentally have, particularly when we see those attributes in less-realized forms in certain members of our own species (infants, for example) and other species (some apes, for example). By understanding the image as relational or functional, we avoid the difficulty of having to define the boundary point at which a particular attribute becomes sufficiently realized or potential to qualify as the divine image.
On the origin of the image, I would just say this: whether the image is seen in what we have or what we do, I don't see any unique problem posed by evolution for its origin. It is possible to see the divine image as being emergent over generations across a population, in the same way (for example) that many Christians believe accountability for sin is emergent over time in each individual. We can't define the exact age for any given individual at which that person becomes accountable, and in fact biblically we have nothing to go on at all (the concept of an age of accountability is not something clearly attested to). Even the idea that there was a particular point in time in my past at which I was not accountable, followed an instant later by another point at which I was accountable, is not attested biblically, is thus speculative, and is (in my opinion) full of theological/philosophical problems. Perhaps it is better to think of my accountability as having emerged over time with maturity, since that seems (to me at least) to be more consonant with everyday experience. Of course that leads to its own mysteries, but at least they are theological and not in tension with experience.
Anyway, I digressed into this discussion on accountability, to draw an analogy with the problem of the origin of the divine image. Perhaps it is also possible to see the divine image as having been an emergent feature over the course of human evolution. Perhaps not - there are many theistic evolutionists who instead see the image, or perhaps the soul, as something having been gifted to particular of our ancestors once God had determined they were ready. This kind of "whammo" gifting, for example, is Catholic doctrine (if I understand correctly). This view has the same sort of experiential problems that the idea of discrete accountability had, however - for example, it would seem to imply a point at which certain individuals were gifted with the image when their parents were not, which seems counter to common sense (ie, what we would expect from our own experience, where none of us are so markedly different from our immediate parents as to warrant such a hard boundary). Thus I tend to prefer an emergent view, and push the problems into the theological realm and out of the experiential.
But in any case, my point is that this question of the origin of the divine image really isn't utterly new or problematic for our acceptance of evolution. It bears many of its aspects in common with already-existing and longstanding puzzles elsewhere in Christian theology, such as the age of accountability. In this manner it is like the controversy over the meaning of "natural", "random" and "chance", which I discussed above.
My 2 cents,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/11/2004 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott-
Thanks very much. That two cents bought me a great deal. I perfectly understand your thoughts and have to say that I don't find anything in them (purpose/chance and divine image as emergent over time) which compromises belief in humanity's uniqueness and unique worth.
Keith, I understand where you're coming from, bro. Really I do. And though I still have exegetical issues to work through, I can at least say that nothing of faith in God or our uniqueness is at stake in the exegetical outcome. I respect your seeing it otherwise. Just wanted to encourage you there. Do this for me: Distill for me what you feel Gen. 1-3 fundamentally is saying about humanity and then show me how an evolutionary paradigm compromises those essential truths about us. Just off the top of my head, I think the point of Gen. 1-3 is (Scott pointed out these too): there is one God who created all we know, including ourselves, and endowed humanity with unique purpose and worth above the rest of creation and made us responsible for it all. We screwed it up and God pledged to restore us.
This seems to me to be the core of what we want to say about ourselves. We are created by the one, unique, God. We have a unique relationship with God, a unique value to God, and a unique charge from God. How do the mechanics (evolved from mud-slime over time or popped out of the same mud-slime in a couple of hours time) matter to this uniqueness? How does "evolved over time" compromise this uniqueness? I just don't see that it does. Since I have zero science ability, I have to make my choice based on the answer to this question. If somebody can explain to me how an evolutionary view is by definition incompatible with belief in a purposeful creator God and humanity's God-given value and responsibility in the world under that God, I'm all ears.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/11/2004 12:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott, sir,
My issues, Scott, with your approach to the Creation account is your reasoning, not your information. As I've noted, one doesn't have to believe the Biblical account as it stands (because science may suggest it all happened differently), but it isn't feasible, in my opinion, to try and support the drastic departure of interpretation, as you do, from the Biblical account's clear and concise declaration. It's your reasonining, namely, not your information, with which I am at odds.
quote:
For starters: if you can't see the religious neutrality in the "Project Steve" statement, and the National Center for Science Education's mission, and instead see atheistic agitation, then its no wonder we're not going to get anywhere.
We will agree to disagree here!
quote:
Genesis 1 is of a semi-liturgical genre not closely paralleled in style elsewhere in the ancient world - you are correct insofar as that goes. But its specific physical elements as such - ie primordial waters, darkness, and formless earth; waters above and below; evidently solid sky; etc - clearly reflect the science of the day.
waters, darkness, formless earth ... it would seem that those are pretty substantial elements to be found in creating an earth and universe out of nothing, wouldn't you say? There's absolutely nothing here to suggest that this is fantasy, myth or legend. It's very matter of fact. How else could God say it the way it is? That you believe there could not have been any change of atmosphere (hence something of a solid sky) because "science" says it just couldn't have been that way, is perposterous!
quote:
As for the rest of Genesis 2-11: not only do the specific physical elements reflect traditions of the time (man formed from earth, flood, vast lifespans, etc) but they cry out for recognition as storied history, ie legend: an anthropomorphized God, personalized serpent, fruit and trees of life and knowledge of good and evil, etiologies (eg of woman from man's side, and of serpentine locomotion), sex and procreation between divine/semi-divine beings and women, etc.
OK, let's consider this:
God is going to create man; He does so from the earth. Well, you're saying man came from evolution; where'd he evolve from? The earth! It's the earth in both cases, and the Biblical account leaves no room for your view. Man was specifically created, not evolved.
Oh, and Tom, to give you a reason why the evolution thing not only cannot be read into the creation account, but contradicts it, consider what God told Adam: there was no helpmate found for him. What, Adam arrived out of the primordial ooz/ape/fish--whatever--and his counter female species got left behind? So ... God has to wait for the ooz to develope a bit more? No, he "creates" the woman out of Adam's side. Again, myth? Why believe that. Let's just toss every odd act of God and every miracle off as "Well, it couldn't have happened that way." How else can God say it happened the way it did?
A tree with fruit on it. What's the problem? The fruit was meaningless; that the newly created couple was not to eat it was the issue.
Talking serpents. Remember Balaam's ass? It's really not that big of a deal. Satan was active trying to deceive the couple. How he spoke using a serpent or what have you to deceive the couple is the point. I suspect it's possible that it was similar to Balaam's ass, or rather, how Satan used Peter to annoy the Lord. Not an issue.
God walks through the garden He created. Legend? Myth? Why believe that? I mean, God appeared to Abraham (unless that's myth) and even showed up in flesh once. Myth? No reason to read that into the account.
Knowledge of good and evil? Myth? This one is, well, I don't know where you're coming from here. Man fell into a state he obviously was not in before the fall. What's wrong with that as a literal reading?
quote:
And I suggest that unless one has a presuppositional commitment to the historicity of Genesis 1-11, no-one would recognize those chapters as modern-style historical chronicle.
Hmm! Up to Darwin's time, it was pretty much the idea that God created man, as the account says. Yeah, one presupposition: that we can read something, understand it, and, without cause, accept it for what it says: common denominator of language in all cultures, in all all time.
quote:
This is not deductive special-pleading, nor is it itself presuppositional; but instead it is inductive and inferential, from the evidence of the text interpretered according to what we know about the culture and time. You can say it is matter-of-factly historical, but its not - not in the same sense as literature produced by modern historians.
What I've insisted on is for the account to be left to an interpretation which it calls for: fact. I am NOT saying that you have to believe it to be true. But there is absolutely no reason to read into or out of the account anything other than what it says--in all cultures, in all time. It's to clear-cut to be read otherwise. Again, I'm not arguing for the Bible verses Science in terms of the evidence of both; I am arguing for the interpretation of the account as it stands, reasoning that there's no room for monkeying with it, regardless of surrounding cultures and time frames.
quote:
Where Genesis 1-11 bears no relation to the myths of the time, however, is in its theological revelation. In Genesis, there is one god, not many; everything besides God in creation is creaturely and subject, not divine; creation is good, not evil; it is intentional from the beginning, not an accident or afterthought; people are all in God's image, not hierarchically ranked according to race or status (divine king versus lowly commoner); man's rule over woman is curse and not created order; people are the crown of God's creation, not slaves of the gods; etc, etc, etc. This is the revelation, and the transport mechanism for it is the legendary conventions of the time. (emphasis Keith's)
I would argue that one can find all kinds of similarites in the myths of the day compared with the theology of Genesis: sacrifices, war among the gods, slavery, etc. Oh, there's similarities, alright. But the Biblical account steps in and says, "I am God, this is what's up and what's going on"; He gives us a true theological perspective. But, once again, you Eisegesis the account by stating that God did so in ... exactly what you just said isn't very comparable to the surrounding cultural accounts: myth and legend (note my bold emphasis in your quote). Either, Scott, the account is myth or it is not. It simply will not do to say, "Well, it's not like the surrounding myths of the time," as you have agreed, "but it's still myth." You're reading into the account what is clearly not there. And you're only reason to do so is because of ... the surrounding cultures of the time (a horribly weak reason for Eisegesis) and because of science. Bad reasoning, in my opinion.
quote:
Certainly the human authors and readers likely thought of Genesis 1-11 as actual history, in the same way as those who heard Jesus thought of the mustard seed as the smallest seed, and the realm of Sheba as being literally at the ends of the earth. But God hijacked these mistaken understandings and used them to transport theological teaching, that being that which matters most - scientific correctness not mattering at all to God (for otherwise why is there no clear, ahead-of-its-time scientific revelation anywhere in Scripture).
So, first, the account does, as I've argued for, ring of an interpretation as I've noted, not myth. Second, are you're going to equate Jesus's parable using a mustard seed or figures of speech about the vastness of Sheba's reign as equatable to the entire creation account and--if I understand you correctly, though I'm not sure--pretty much the rest of the Pentateuch being myth? You're suggesting that those few examples you give are to be equated with the entire Biblical creation account as being myth or hyberboli? Very weak, my brother, very weak reasoning, in my opinion. I've already made allowances for figures of speech, hyperboli, etc. But that's just not necessary to find those things in the creation account's reading. Only when we look at science or something else do we have reason, in your opinion, to do so. And I'm not arguing that. That's a whole different ball game.
quote:
And all this is no more false on God's part than we are when we condescend to little children. I think your problem is that you don't respect legend as a valid literary genre in its own right, for certain cultures in their own right; you instead measure it by its validity in today's modern culture, and see in it only false history, foolishness and lies. Critical realist though I am, the postmodernists have (in my opinion) a very good case against that kind of "cultural imperialism". Why should we think that God prefers the ways of our culture over theirs, when what our culture's norms are good at (communicating factual history, for example) were neither the conventions of the time nor the heart of God?
I will quote you in what you said moments ago for my defense: Certainly the human authors and readers likely thought of Genesis 1-11 as actual history, in the same way as those who heard Jesus thought of the mustard seed as the smallest seed, and the realm of Sheba as being literally at the ends of the earth. As noted, I hardly think the mustard seed or Sheba issues are equatable to insist that the authors and readers of Genesis considered the accounts myth and legend. There's never a hint in their writings, that I am aware of, that it was such. Scott, the writers and readers believed it to be true and historical as it was written. They all understood, I'm sure, that Sheba wasn't queen of everything, and that the mustard seed might not have been the smallest seed, because of the "fact" that there were other seeds smaller, if there were, as you say. Again, I remember something about this in your conversation with Sean, but I don't remember the facts. I think you did mention the seed, though. Anyway, there was no reason to believe otherwise about the account of Genesis, however, except for a literal, historical reading. Now, if you've got proof--proof, positive, settled-forever proof--that the creation account did, in fact, happen a different way, fine. But I'm only arguing, as I've said, that the Bible's account doesn't lead one to say, "Ooooh, this is obviously myth, it's obviously legend, and it sure makes for good theology." I personally do not believe there is evidence of the magnitude you suggest. But, I've got some reading to do. That's for sure.
quote:
And anyway - even if you do think all this ahistorical interpretation of Genesis is bonkers, it is not directly related to the science of evolution. It is merely one line of reasoning for harmonizing Christian faith in Genesis with science, and the overall harmonization scheme takes its support from the convergence of evidence - ie not just the evidence from Genesis, outlined above, that it is not meant by God for us to understand as plainly literal history today, but also the evidence from science that it cannot be interpreted that way.
Bonkers! I love it. I haven't heard that word in a while. Hey, I'm all for Christians trying to make peace with science, this, that and the other and the creation account. I just don't like Eisegesis and bad reasoning reinterpreting what the account says. There's no room for that. If it turned out that mankind evolved, then the Bible is flat, plain wrong about it's account of man's coming about. One cannot harmonize evolution and the creation account. One cannot explain man has evolving to some place where God says, "Oh, cool, I'll call this stage of development Adam." Micro evolution (I think that's it, where the small things change) is evident, as I understand it. But that's like different translations of the Bible: they read differently, but the doctrine holds together pretty darned well (well, not in some of them, that's for sure). But pure evolution (macro, is it?) leaves the game and starts its own.
quote:
Finally (since this is getting long again), all the objections you listed against science in your preceding post were insubstantial. For example, the analogy between the opinion of scientists on prehistory and the tautological opinion of atheists on atheism doesn't work. Radiometric dating methods employ cross-checks and safeguards to defend against massive anomoly - with the fact that most dates converge to the same pattern, and most anomolies have excellent scientific explanations, showing the effectiveness of those methods (volcano anecdotes notwithstanding). And so on - but I won't go into any more detail here.
Are you saying that there wasn't huge, huge mistakes with Piltdown man, the pig's tooth stuff, the many cases of "We've found the missing link" only to be made the fool, and the strong evidence of fraud to keep the lie going? There isn't a fossil yet, Scott that backs up man having evolved. Not one. Well, there'll come another "We've found the link," but I suspect it, too, will be shown to be far from what it claims. It's happened over and over. And this is the only issue I'm arguing about with regard to evolution. I'm not up on the other stuff.
Brother, I REEEEALLY apologize if I've come on too strong or offended you. Heavens, take it with a grain of salt, please. I don't mean to be harsh, rude or anything else. I really, really don't. I'm just not able to write toned-down from the start. I have to go back and edit like crazy to smooth it out some. But I don't have that time now, and I haven't had the time in the past few posts. And I'm really sorry. You're brilliant, and, as I've said, I wish I had half your talents in writing and research. But I won't back down on the reasoning part of this without darned good cause. That's all I mean to defend. Otherwise, I simply hate you, hate you, hate you!!! 
Hey, for all the good that's come out of this,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 2/11/2004 2:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Keith,
Thanks for your response, and indeed all your responses. I appreciate them. You express yourself well, without any ambiguity, and without offending (don't worry about that, please, though I thank you for your sensitivity, as not all are so tolerant of "liberal" views like mine on this).
I won't attempt to engage with your latest response point for point, since I had earlier said I wouldn't unless you wanted to take up a particular point in detail (and I don't see in your latest response that you wish to do that).
I will say that, to read better-articulated arguments than mine for the ahistoricity of Genesis 1-11, you should pick up a copy of Conrad Hyers' The Meaning of Creation. Here's the link where you can order it from amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804201250/qid=1076549219/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-6345643-2342416 You can also read a paper of his online, "Dinosaur Religion", at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Hyers.html - I think it is, word-for-word, the best brief defense of ahistoricity I've ever read.
Ahistoricity (essentially) is also defended better than I by John Stek in his chapter, "What Says the Scripture?", in Portraits of Creation. This book is also available at amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802804853/qid=1076549300/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6345643-2342416 - but, you know what, since its just the one chapter I'm talking about here (the rest of the book is excellent too, but focuses on science not Bible), if you want I'll photocopy the chapter for you and mail it. I'll even pick up the postage. If interested, email me.
And you should familiarize yourself with the scientific case by reading the aforementioned Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. Otherwise you run the risk of running up against Augustine's admonition (see http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm - yes, that Augustine, among the greatest of the early church fathers). Piltdown Man, "Nebraska Man" (the pig tooth)...the case creationists make from these are all non sequiturs. Here's the amazon.com link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060930497/qid=1076549463/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6345643-2342416
Hyers, Stek, and Miller are all Christians. Hyers and Stek are theologians and/or Bible scholars - Stek in fact has led, and perhaps still heads, the NIV translation committee (pretty good evangelical credentials there). Miller is a Brown University biologist and major biology textbook author.
Hope this helps. Once again, thanks for the debate.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/11/2004 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Keith: Oh, and Tom, to give you a reason why the evolution thing not only cannot be read into the creation account, but contradicts it, consider what God told Adam: there was no helpmate found for him. What, Adam arrived out of the primordial ooz/ape/fish--whatever--and his counter female species got left behind? So ... God has to wait for the ooz to develope a bit more?
Tom: I hear ya. I have similar textual issues too, the creation of Eve after the creation of Adam is perhaps the major one. Now, I’m open to hear what this post-Adam creation of Eve is intended to mean. My problem with “legends” (and I don’t doubt they were used) is hermeneutical. Somebody please take me by the hand and show me HOW to interpret a legend, how to squeeze the truth out of it. How does one determine the “point”? How does one determine which details of the story (like Eve’s being created after Adam) are necessary and which are not, and of those which ARE necessary, what they mean? How does one do that? What I’ve seen thus far of ahistorical interpretations is arbitrary, but I haven’t read those Scott suggested.
But, Keith, you haven’t yet boiled things down for me. OK, so you argue the text won’t let us say the female of the species was, historically speaking, created symultaneously with the male (which is certainly demanded by evolution). Fine. But the level of your emotional investment in THIS text seems to me to be far greater than disputes you have about OTHER texts you don’t make a big deal over. We all disagree about some texts with little or no consequence, but other texts are a hill to die on because of the consequences. I’m asking you what the consequences are here for Genesis. Boil it down for me. If by some freakiness of genre—just hang with me a moment, K?—it turns out that the point of Eve’s being pictured as created after Adam has nothing to do with a strictly “historical subsequence” (X happened and then Y happened) but rather reflects a “functional subsequence” (that is, some sort of ‘before-and-after’ relative to the relationship between male and females IS being asserted by the text, but it’s not a ‘historical’ before-and-after; there are other options in my head but never mind them right now), what do you lose? Bottom line. Does God no longer exist? Is God no longer Creator? Do we no longer bare God’s image? Are we no longer uniquely valuable to God? What is it? What do you lose if, by some freakiness of genre and hermeneutic that eludes us both right now, the ‘after’ of Eve’s creation relative to Adam is not a historical ‘after’ but functional or relational ‘after’? This is why I’d like to hear you boil down the creation narrative for me. What’s REALLY at stake? Don’t argue text and hermeneutics right now. Compare the end products for me.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/12/2004 6:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Scott.
I've got those references noted, and I'll definitely take a look into them. I Just paid for my first year's Greek course, mind you, so I'm down on the cash flow thing. But well worth it, it was! Next, however ... we dig up Darwin. "Alright, outta the grave with ya, and snap to it!"
Tom, sir,
quote:
OK, so you argue the text won’t let us say the female of the species was, historically speaking, created symultaneously with the male (which is certainly demanded by evolution). Fine. But the level of your emotional investment in THIS text seems to me to be far greater than disputes you have about OTHER texts you don’t make a big deal over.
First, the Eve text is just an example, not one I'm more emotionally charged over than any other. I wasn't intending to emphasise this particular passage more than any other.
Mythology, legend and what have you do not convey truth. There may be germs of truth, but they are so deeply imbedded and convoluted that trying to extract them quickly turns into a free-for-all. You, yourself, demonstrated this well when you said in your last post, "Somebody please take me by the hand and show me HOW to interpret a legend, how to squeeze the truth out of it. How does one determine the “point”? How does one determine which details of the story (like Eve’s being created after Adam) are necessary and which are not, and of those which ARE necessary, what they mean? How does one do that? What I’ve seen thus far of ahistorical interpretations is arbitrary, but I haven’t read those Scott suggested"
I might note, that Jesus ended the possibility of this kind of confusion coming about in God's word when He stated, "Thy word is truth." It is understood well that in all the times God spoke, He spoke truth. Scripture is clear that holy men were moved by God to write. The point? That God's word is truth. Let's move on.
One should not have to ask the kinds of questions you noted, Tom, in regard to truth as it's given in God's word. Jesus was clear: the word of God IS truth--not "contains" truth, not "conveys" truth. It is truth. Further, one should not have to ask someone else about extracting truth from something that purportedly IS the truth. The Ethiopian had help from Philip, not to extract truth, but to "complete" his understanding of truth from what was clear and literally undertood in Isaiah's prophecy. The Ethiopian may not have known "who" was the subject of Isaiah's prophecy, but he knew it wasn't legend or myth as context; it was to be understood at face value. Philip came along only to clearly address the truth of the passage by clarifying who the Subject of the passage was; the one, who up to that time, hadn't existed in human form, therefore could not be known.
If God's word is truth, in what way is it truth? Truth no more distinguishable than ancient surrounding cultural mythology and legend, in which case one is at the complete mercy of shot-in-the-dark hermeneutics and interpretation in order to find theological truth (an "arbitrary" attempt at interpreation, as you've noted)? It makes far more sense from a Biblical perspective--the theology becoming "complete" in its meaning in view of He who came as THE blood covering, the lamb killed--to conclude that if it really was the one, true God who spoke about the creation account, the last thing he would do is use surrounding (false) myth and legend as a vehicle to convey truth (100% pure truth, as Jesus testified God word is). Quite the contrary: in the hearts and minds of ancient pagan mankind was the remembrance (or, perhaps, imbedded information) of that which was true, but was, as usual, distorted; the practice of sacfrifice, of moral evaluation, of accountablility, etc. This is not only new, it is common in mankind in all cultures in all ages. Man knows things "ought" to be one way by the way he excuses or defends himself (ala Romans 1). Myth and legend only serve to enhance the problem, both hermeneutically and in the interpretation itself, not solve it. Anything goes. Anything can be read into the passage if we don't accept it for what it says.
The common demoninator among men, which makes communication even possible and is why we can get the core of our message across to anyone of any culture of any time, resides in our built-in epistomological make-up; a reflection of yet another aspect of having been made in the image of God. It is this ability to communicate the essentials, to understand what's being communicated that must be respected. As Moses said, speaking for God, in Deut, "I've not said anything here you can't understand; you don't have to look up hoping the message will come down in clarity; you don't have to look to the 'below' in hopes of clarity coming from there" (Deut 30).
OK, so first, God's word is truth. Second, our epistemological (boy, that's tricky to spell) make-up makes possible the understanding of truth being communicated, as well as anything else we are trying to communcate: legend, myth, etc. So now, the question has to be asked, "OK, isn't it possible that God communicated truth via myth and legend in the Genesis accounts?"
First, it is the nature of communication that if there is no reason to question the literality of what's being communcated--i.e., one has not said that such-and-such is, or is to be understood as myth or figure of speech, then the defalt of communication is that one is saying what one is intending to say; the default understanding is that one understand the other as saying what is intended to be said: "I'm going to the store, and I'll be back soon." or "Keep the sabbath, because in six days the Lord your God created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that's in them. Anyone who does not keep the sabbath must die."
There's no difference, for instance, in either the clarity of the declaritive context of the creation account or in its literal prose. There isn't the slightest reason to change our default approach to understanding the elements communicated in the Genesis account, anymore than there is to change them when someone tells us they're going to the store and they'll be right back. Surrounding cultural myth should, if anything, put one on guard against Eisegesis, because, as you noted, Tom, one cannot clearly find any sense of direction to obtain truth. This is why I say, the presupposition to accept the account as it stands is more acceptable than monkeying with it; that kind of approach being neither responsibly reasoned or natural, and can only complicate the simplicity of the message as it is given.
Why is this so important as to an understanding of the God who gave the message? Because He did something that had not happened before: gave an (a five-book) account of truth, of clear, precise understanding of Himself, His creation and of mankind's dilemma. He did NOT, however, give full revelation of these two items, but we are led to believe that the account (having come from the one, true God in contrast to everything else that is to now be considered false and in opposition to God's truth and God's being) is both literal, real and truth. Further, it is to be accepted as historically reliable.
Obviously, Tom, God is always going to be God, no matter how we believe the creation account: let God be true but every man a liar. But that's not the point. The point is that God spoke up in order to clearly portray TO US who He is, that He created us the way He said He did, and that man is screwed up. To approach the book of Genesis, or any other book in the Bible, for that matter, without a natural default epistomology, unless one has darned good "reason" to do otherwise, is to distort the picture God has painted, of Himself, of His creation and of mankind. And frankly, I am hardly bothered by grasshoppers with or without hind legs, hares that do or do not chew the cud or mustard seeds that are or are not the smallest seed on the planet. These issues are not worth the energy it takes to compare them with a hermeteutic that treats the entire Biblical creation account (as well as the rest of the Bible's content) as myth and legend, unles, of course, something in a passage itself clearly conveys such as a vehicle of communication.
This is why all the Biblical writers never hint at anything in Scripture as being couched in any other context than what one is lead to believe the context is: literal and true. This is also why truth NEVER has to be extracted out of what would otherwise be an ambiguous, shot-in-the-dark interpretation. It is true that Scripture uses figure of speech, hyperboli, etc. at times. But those are most always self-evident; it's a common denominator in all cultures of all time to use these kinds of forms of speech. But there is absolutely nothing hinted as such that the Penteteuc ... Penta ... those first five books of Moses is such! Rather, one is left with the matter-of-fact "This is how is is, folks." The reason for that, as I say, is because we are talking about God; His character, His creation, and mankind's dilemma ... something truthful has been communicated about all three that can never be communcated in myth, legend or any other vehicle without tremendous cost to both the interpreation of the message and the confusion one encounters in these kinds of genre.
Well, I suppose I haven't addressed your question, Tom, as fully as I could have, but the above is at least the crux of what's going on. I would ask again, how else could God have communicated the literal truth of the passage than to have said it in the manner we humans are, by defalt, accustomed to? "I'm going to the store." How else can I say that and get the point across most literally and truly than to say it that way? I mean, that's how we, by default, work. And every culture is no different. Otherwise, we'd be wasting time trying to communicate at all. We are ALL made in the image of God, and evolution cannot, apart from wiggling God into it in the most precarious and inconsistent manner, explain the sudden, "Mankind has arrived." When? At what time? How many years was mankind darned close but not quite ready? Where in the world is this even hinted at in the Genesis account even if we were to afford its context as myth and legend? Sheesh, when will it stop if we don't just take it for what it says? Ah, but enter the world: its authority and truth, making God's second-rate, free-for-all commentary on the world.
The real heart of the matter here is that science has come to be recognized as THE authority; the Bible, which was once, with virtually no dispute from science, the account of truth, as Jesus said Himself. But that's changed. Now, we "know better"; the Bible now must be reinterpreted from what was almost exclusively a literal interpretation by most all (not all, but most all) for so long. The Bible becomes a description of something conveying truth, but no one can authoritatively say where it starts (both the myth/legend and the truth it's supposed to convey) or where it stops.
To finish here, I've noted with Scott that if were' going to compare science as authority and truth (which is what most of the scientfic world does, Scott, perhaps, excluded) verses the Bible as truth, that's one thing. But what we can never honestly do, because of the reasons I've stated above, is re-interpret the Bible to fit our external world view. It neither gives us that right to do so in its most natural and settled reading, and it is not consistent with how we we naturally approach communication. If the Bible were to have made itself clear somewhere, anywhere, that the whole (Genesis) account is only a myth and legend vehicle, fine. It does not do so, however. It absolutely could not have done so without leaving one having to ask those questions about discerning truth in myth and legend, as you noted, Tom. And there goes our understanding of God, His creation--what happened to it--and of mankind's dilemma. It's a free-for-all. The NT would be of no help either, because first, they took God's word to mean what it meant (so they wouldn't have had a solid understanding of truth, having to face the same issues you've noted, can have no more of an understanding of truth than anyone else), and second, they purport that the same God who spoke to Moses spoke to them; nothing less confusing in its commuincation of truth than anything previous to these apostles and prophets. Logically, Tom, that's ridiculous.
I contend, therefore, that we can discover both the imbedded semblence of truth in myths and legends and explain why they contain germs of truth in view of the literal truth of God's word regarding the Biblical account. Without the natural and take-it-at-face-value approach to Scripture, having not been led to believe it in any other context, we would never be able to find truth in any of these accounts, God's word included!
Well, I'm staying late after work again!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 2/12/2004 9:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
You said:
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
I have similar textual issues too, the creation of Eve after the creation of Adam is perhaps the major one. Now, I’m open to hear what this post-Adam creation of Eve is intended to mean. My problem with “legends” (and I don’t doubt they were used) is hermeneutical. Somebody please take me by the hand and show me HOW to interpret a legend, how to squeeze the truth out of it. How does one determine the “point”? How does one determine which details of the story (like Eve’s being created after Adam) are necessary and which are not, and of those which ARE necessary, what they mean? How does one do that?
You do it in the same way that you interpret any other fictional narrative. Which details of the parable of the good Samaritan are essential to the point, and which are window dressing to make a good story? Which aspects of Hamlet or Lord of the Flies or Waiting for Godot are essential to their themes, and which aspects simply support the narrative? You use your discernment (in consultation with that of others) to find those parts of the narrative which stand out (are they peculiar, are they pivotal, etc) and which avail themselves of thematic interpretations which are concordant with what you already have reason to believe is in the heart of the author (the inspirer, in the case of scripture). You try various interpretations and see which ones fit most uniformly across the narrative, discarding interpretations of story elements which are discordant with interpretations of other elements of the same story. In short, you use a literary, not scientific, method to do it.
For all of us perhaps technically-minded people, who grudgingly attended (and perhaps slept through) comparative literature courses in high school or college, I understand that this might seem unsatisfactory. We prefer to see the world through our rigorous and systematic lenses, and want everything to conform to those tools. But to do so ignores how in fact much of the world actually communicates - ie through art and literature - as even reflected unambiguously in parts of the Bible such as the parables and psalms and other wisdom writings.
As to what Eve's creation after Adam might mean when interpreted in a literary fashion: Look at Adam's proclamation in Genesis 2:23 ("...This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh...") and the etiological statement of Genesis 2:24 ("Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.") These elements are situated at a pivotal point in the narrative: they are the climax of the second creation account (Genesis 2). After that conclusion, the up-til-then-continuous Genesis 2 creation narrative ends, and the narrative switches to begin the account of temptation and fall.
So, we see that where the Genesis 2 creation account leads is to emphasize how man and woman are made for one another - how they belong with one another more than they belong with anything else in creation. Seen in this light, then, the creation of man at the beginning of things, and the creation of woman at the end of things, is an effective literary device to underscore this: for it opens a gap between their creation, in which every other living thing is created. This then serves to emphasize the inadequacy of all of those other creatures to fit with man in that regard.
In other words, it is the search for a proper companion, which can only happen when man and woman are created separately, that drives home the point that man and woman are made for one another. If, instead, the narrator had placed the creation of man and woman together (as in Genesis 1), no such search and thus no such artfully strong message would have been possible.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 2/12/2004 9:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
Mythology, legend and what have you do not convey truth. There may be germs of truth, but they are so deeply imbedded and convoluted that trying to extract them quickly turns into a free-for-all...
Keith, I can only conclude you find no value in fiction. Since Huck Finn never actually existed, Huckleberry Finn is a waste of time. In fact it is misleading, for it reads as a plain, straightforward narrative, that a person not educated in the ways of our culture would be forgiven for mistaking to be plainly and obviously historical. It might have germs of truth in it, but because it is so much more "subjective" to discern it than if that truth was just "objectively" laid-out in abstract discourse (eg, in the Abolitionist's Manifesto), it is an inferior vehicle which God would disdain.
I'll say it again: your reasoning is overly deductive from technocratic modernistic impulses. You deduct, from plainly-literal communication being the common denominator of language, to the conclusion that therefore that mode of communication would always be used everywhere, everytime, by everybody for communicating everything. You deduct, from God being a God of truth, to the conclusion that intended truth always includes that which is plainly and literally stated and thus God would follow suit in inspiring scripture. In short, you don't look at evidence of how people actually communicate - you deduct from general principles.
Try an inductive approach instead: look around you at how many artists and authors in how many cultures use fictitious genres to communicate truth in a way that is valued by their readers. Look around at how archaeology and anthropology reveal that such storytelling is not a modern idiosyncracy, but has been done throughout time, wherever mankind has been gathered together. Look at how archaeology reveals that - whereas critical history and abstract discourse are relatively recent inventions, only emerging in a very few cultures, and only spreading gradually to those with which they had contact - in contrast storytelling has always existed everywhere. Look inside the Bible for clues that the ancient Hebrews were no different in this respect, and even the Jews of Jesus' time still retained some memory of and respect for that (eg parable and midrash). Then follow the inference to the conclusion: that an ahistorical interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is at least plausible, just as a historical interpretation like what you propose is plausible (which I've always plainly admitted). And follow the consensus scientific evidence, revealing a totally different history than that literally indicated by Genesis 1-11, and realize that, for me at least, this clinches it.
Sorry. I wasn't going to respond but I can't seem to help myself :-)
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/15/2004 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by kcy1998
Here is my question for you Scott. How do you view Scripture and how is the Bible different from that of the Koran or some other religious book?
Thanks,
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
From the intra- and extra-biblical evidence, and seen through my Christian faith, I've come over the years to see the Bible as God's word in human words - God revealed through the witness of human literature. I've come to believe that the God who so accommodated himself to mankind as to come in fully human form within a particular historical and cultural context, is also the God who points the way to that incarnation by accommodating himself to fully human words. The human and the divine are present in scripture in a similarly paradoxical manner, I believe, as they were in the incarnation of Jesus: "fully God and fully man except this: that he was without sin". Seeing Jesus, then, helps me understand the Bible, even more so than the other way around.
What this means is that the way Jesus was, is the lens through which I think we should see the Bible. And so, just as Jesus' basic teaching gave sufficient true revelation of God's heart, so too does the Bible's basic teaching, seen in alignment with Jesus. And likewise, just as Jesus' teaching came as human words from a human brain, making use of the language, social customs and values, literary and epistemological conventions, and imperfect secular knowledge of the day, so too does the Bible's teaching.
Is this circular - to place Jesus before and over the Bible, when it is only the Bible that tells us about him? Well, it certainly isn't linear, I'll admit that. But what else in our relationship with God is? For example, is it that God leads/draws/calls us, and then we choose - or rather, find ourselves choosing (Calvinist)? Or is it that we "make a decision for God" and then God brings us in (Charismatic)? I think most of us sense from the Bible and experience that it is "both/and" and not "either/or": God woos us while leaving our wills responsible for choosing him, yet enabled by him to do so. It is symbiotic, neither linear nor circular.
And that's the way I see it with Jesus and the Bible. Scripture gives us information about him - the empirical parts of which are at least generally historically plausible (there was a Rome and a Judea, a Caesar and a Herod, etc), and the moral/spiritual parts of which move us to value him. These draw us to Jesus and give credence to his nature, life and teaching, which in turn work back to show us how to further understand scripture in more difficult areas.
What's different about this in comparison with the scriptures of other religions? Well, if the question is merely about a matter of description, I think there are several differences. The Christian faith is, I believe, at core, historical - if the faith is to have any content, Jesus must have lived, taught, died and been raised, within a historical context that at least basically gibes with real history. Yet the accommodation inherent in Jesus' incarnation and the nature of the God of whom he taught allows for much cultural dependency and contingency as well. Thus the Bible is, and must be, at core, historically reliable - there was an Israel, a Rome, etc - while the historicity of its many details can be, and is, a mixed bag: in many places untestable, in some places testable and verified (or at least not falsified), and in other places testable and falsified (thus, I conclude, reflecting cultural accommodation). In other words, the Bible lives up consistently to what we would expect, given my view.
In contrast, to my knowledge the scriptures of other religions either offer a different model of themselves, or fail to live up to their model as well as the Bible does to its (in my very inexpert opinion). For example, the Hindu scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita generally do not test themselves by making any claim to historicity, so far as I am aware. Thus there can be no objective verification of overall plausibility, unlike in the case of the Bible. In contrast, the Mormons do make claims for at least the general historicity of the Book of Mormon - yet not even the broadest and most testable historical assertions of that book (such as the semitic roots of Native Americans, and the presence of a great semitic civilization in the prehistoric Americas) have been verified (this would be as if, in the Bible's case, there were no independent evidence of ancient Israel, Assyria, Babylon and etc).
A different example is the Koran. The Koran is claimed to be direct eternally-pre-existent dictation from God, to the extent that the very original Arabic words are thoroughly inerrant and timeless in their plain and literal meanings. This is a much stronger claim than Christianity and Judaism have historically taken for their scriptures! Thus it would seem to me there can be no "excuse" in the form of cultural accommodation for the Koran, unlike I have argued regarding the Bible - which seems, to me, to pose a problem for the Koran when presented with its own set of "difficulties" (ie inconsistencies vis-a-vis internal and external data).
So there are concrete ways in which the Bible is different than the world's other scriptures, and I've even hinted above at how one might find the Bible more valid in what it tries to do than the others. But I do not think we can demonstrate the greater validity of the Bible by claiming various miraculous things about its nature over against other scriptures, as so many conservative Christian apologists are wont to do (for example, in claiming and defending total factual inerrancy, proven predictive prophecy fulfillment, etc). I don't believe the Bible bears out those conservative claims as triumphantly as they are presented; it is, in my opinion, a far more dubious and arguable case than many conservative apologists lead their readers to believe.
Ultimately what shows the particular validity of Christianity to me, is not any intellectual, critical, positivist demonstration of Biblical perfection - because I don't think those demonstrations fulfill their billing. Rather, it is the overall picture the Bible gives of God through Jesus, and how that resonates with and influences my life and the lives of overwhelming numbers of others throughout history.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/16/2004 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
On the other hand, I have a question for you guys. If ANYTHING, what do you see that would be positive of scientific creationist's attempts?
I'll take it that, by "scientific creationists", you mean young-earth creationist (YEC) apologetic organizations (like Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research) and apologists (like Ken Ham and Henry Morris). I base this on the fact it was YEC apologists (Henry Morris specifically, I think) who first laid claim to the term "scientific creationism" back in the 1960's and 1970's. Just to clarify, the YEC claim isn't just that God created, but he did so in the way described in Genesis 1-11 when plainly and literally understood as a modern-style historical chronicle: 6 days, a few thousand years ago, with vegetarian cats and etc, followed by introduction of physical death at the Fall, a worldwide mountaintop-submerging flood complete with dinosaurs on the ark, etc.
Thus defined, let me clearly state that I think YEC has contributed nothing positive to the scene. It is as radically opposed to reasonable consensus mainstream science as holocaust denial is to reasonable consensus mainstream history, and in this YEC does exactly what Augustine once warned against (see http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm). But more particularly, I think YEC casts such shame on the Christian witness because of how it has most often conducted itself: by denying the overwhelming convergence of evidence against its claims yet generally obscuring and denying that it does so. In fact, IMO the great shame of YEC is not that it is very probably wrong - in science, there is always at least a smidgeon of a chance YEC could be right - but that YEC apologists so often greatly mischaracterize the balance sheet at present. One can be simply honestly mistaken about scientific theories of prehistory and origin - things one does not directly experience. But it is a different thing entirely to create a misleading impression in the minds of one's followers regarding things one does directly experience, like the size, qualifications and motives of the vast majority of scientists, Christian and non-Christian alike, one is arrayed against. (I'm speaking here of things like "scientists flip-flop all the time, they don't know any better than you and I" or "scientists weren't there, so they can't know what happened" or "lots and lots of scientists reject evolution" or "there's much more evidence in favor of a young earth than an old earth" or "Christian scientists who accept evolution aren't really Christian, or are brainwashed, or are afraid of ridicule from their colleagues".) It is this lack of intellectual humility and charity in YEC that disturbs me most.
On the other hand, I think some other forms of creationism, which I do not endorse either, have had some positive aspects. Old earth creationism (OEC), sometimes called "progressive creationism", has I think avoided much of the YEC hubris, both by being open to data and dialogue while at the same time being so castigated by YEC. (I'm thinking of Hugh Ross here, of Reasons to Believe, for example.) The "intelligent design" (ID) movement, sort of an umbrella for OEC and YEC in which their differences are laid aside in favor of attacking just a few mainstream ideas such as abiogeneis, has also conducted itself positively in at least one way - namely, by doing the right thing and trying to get the scientific community engaged in their arguments and not just the public (which I see as positive because it is the relevant professional community where technical questions should be settled, not the public and political spheres). I do not endorse OEC or ID views - upon investigating their claims against the mainstream I don't see where they really hold water - but that's OK (they wouldn't accept my theistic-evolution views either) - I still see some positive elements in what they have done and how they have done it.
My two cents,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/17/2004 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
My thing is that I was thinking in terms of how creationists attempt to stem an increasingly secularistic culture.
Sorry, I can't credit YEC for this - essentially all Christian ministries are engaged in this attempt, and YEC does not stand out or contribute anything positive and unique in this regard.
quote:
Or about how they, like the early fundamentalists have tried to "combat" modernity on its own grounds, i.e. the use of enlightenment rationality framework to stand for truth, much like the early church used philosophical categories to speak to their time.
Sorry, I can't credit YEC for trying to use the tools of positivism, like critical method in science, to essentially prove God (for what else would it be if they were right), simply because the antithesis of that is what atheists do. Let me put it this way. If the game of life ultimately is football, it is foolishness to try to justify football to a baseball team by using the rules of baseball. First, it won't work - when it comes to explaining baseball by the rules of baseball, versus explaining football by the rules of baseball, the former approach will always succeed better, no much how one obfuscates, disparages and denies. (And indeed, such obfuscation, disparagement and denial is like quicksand - the more you struggle, the more you sink - and the YEC leaders are in deep.) And second, it doesn't even matter - if football's rules are what life is ultimately about, then whether baseball's rules point to football or not is irrelevant.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 3/17/2004 2:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by kcy1998
Scott,
I appreciate you replying to my question. It is very helpful as I work through this issue.
My take on your response is that the Bible was written by humans through the inspiration of God. God allowd the writers t use their own quirks and stlyes to the writings. They could have even embellished if that was part of the writers personalities. The writers also used their knowledge of the culture and world around them. This is why several writers talk about things that are not accurate when it comes to science.
If you have heard of "verbal inspiration" or "plenary inspiration" - God chose and approves equally of every word in Scripture, though the author may have sifted between options that God allowed him for each word - I do not believe that, simply because it would seem to me that this would lead naturally to either (a) total internal consistency and factual inerrancy, or (b) some degree of inconsistency and errancy directly willed by God. Option (a) is untenable on empirical grounds, and (b) is simply less attractive to my preconceptions than the options outside the sphere of verbal plenary inspiration.
I believe instead that the theory of inspiration which best fits the empirical evidence (both intra-biblical and extra-biblical) and is most congruent with my broader, mostly-Arminian theology (which includes a God who hides himself, who woos but does not coerce, who lays aside his prerogatives and gives us freedom), is one of "inspired concepts". God imbues the author with the germ of a revelation and allows the author to interpret it and express it in his own words and according to his own culture. Revelation is given progressively over time in this way, as culture grows to be capable of receiving it. And so forth. As such, it is incumbent upon us to separate out the revelation - the teaching point - from the literal meanings - the human language - that transports it. This doesn't mean that God's teaching point in scripture is necessarily always non-literal, but it does mean that his teaching point can be, when other indicators (intra-biblical, extra-biblical, the "in Christ" test, etc) suggest it.
If you want to learn more about this idea of inspiration, you might try C. S. Lewis for example (see his Reflections on the Psalms). None of these ideas are idiosyncratically my own.
quote:
When it comes to the other religious writings Christianity is seperate because it can be verified by history. As you stated Rome, Judea, Pontious Pilate, etc. Other religions do not have the same type of verification. I am not too sure if I should take a piece of paper for every religion and write down the things that can be verified and not verified. Then the religion that has the most marks under the verified column is the winner!
Does that make sense? I do not mean to be cynical but this is an issue that I am struggling with.
In my opinion, no - I'm sorry, its just not that linear. For example, other religions are heavily teaching-focused, like Hinduism and Buddhism, and thus are not historically verifiable. But is this a strike against them? Not necessarily - who's to say that a religion must be historically-based when everyone always concedes that in any religion its the teachings that really matter? Ultimately we all make judgement calls when choosing a religion (to the extent any of us really "choose" a religion rather than grow into what our family, community and culture offer).
What appeals to me about Christianity, though, is that it dares to be historically based as well as teaching-based. It is riskier than avowedly-mythological Hinduism is, or avowedly-pedagogical Buddhism is, because the telling of Christianity actually makes fact claims about events in history, some of which (by no means all) can be verified in principle, and many of those of which (by no means all) have indeed been verified. In particular, all of the broad-brush world-historical claims, about ancient civilizations and what-not, have been verified (except the earliest parts of the Pentateuch, say the Exodus and prior). What I like about Christianity is how it risks like this and comes off pretty well except where we have reasons (many of which I've suggested in this thread) for not expecting extreme historicity. It gives me a level of confidence that I feel I would find lacking in Hinduism or Buddhism. But ultimately, it is a judgement call.
As I believe I said, I am not a triumphalist (meaning someone who sees their view as so certain that they see it as obtuse to deny it).
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 3/24/2004 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Here is a piece of a research paper I did on the subject that I think my shed some light. (at least it did for me.)
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light DAY and the darkness he called NIGHT and the EVENING and the MORNING were THE FIRST DAY.
What God called the FIRST DAY consisting of LIGHT and DARKNESS, EVENING and MORNING, DAY AND NIGHT, took place BEFORE he created the Sun, Moon and Stars. This fact is EXTREMELY significant since it is the rotation of the earth as it circles the sun, as well as the stars from which we calculate and measure a 24 HOUR DAY.
It is not until the FOURTH DAY that the Sun, Moon, Stars and other Planets are made.
Gen. 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, AND FOR DAYS AND YEARS. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made tow great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to dived the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were THE FOURTH DAY.
Before this point in time, there was no such thing as a 24 hour day. Also without a 24 hour day, there was no such thing as a year. We get the standard religious Genesis teaching on creation, that everything only took six literal 24 hour days for God to create from the time when people still thought the earth was flat and did not know that the Earth turned on it axis and revolved around the Sun. And when we are taught this, the fact that the Sun, Moon and Stars were not made until the Fourth Day is never brought up. Neither do we consider when we read this, how time such as the 24 hour day and the years is calculated. This is right in front of our face, but we have never stopped to consider it’s implications.
Since DAYS AND YEARS, did not exist before both the heaven, the earth and plants existed, the TIME in which these things were created and made, is unable for us to determine. But there are other things we have missed when reading these records, that will show us that, however long a time it was, it was extremely longer than a 24 hour period of time. We can see the proof of this in the first natural laws that God established on what is called The Third Day.
Gen. 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto ONE PLACE (the earth, not “Mars”, Mars, did not exist till the FOURTH DAY.) and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. AND THE EARTH BROUGHT FORTH grass and herb YIELDING SEED AFTER HIS KIND, and the tree YIELDING FRUIT, WHOSE SEED WAS IN ITSELF, AFTER HIS KIND: And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the Third Day.
Here God established THE LAW OF REPRODUCTION. What is “called” the Third Day ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT have been a 24 hour day, for the simple reason that for it to be so, God would then have had to break the very law he had just established. Grass, Herbs, and Trees do not grow and reproduce themselves “over night”, so to speak. You do not plant a seed in your garden and then go to bed that night and wake up and are ready to eat the fruits there of the next morning. Seeds take time to grow and then reproduce themselves, allowing more seeds to fall to the earth and grow.
If you take and plow up and acre of land, and do not specifically plant anything it will still bring forth grass, trees and other various plants. Firstly because seeds are in the ground from what was planted there before, and secondly from seeds that have been blown in by the wind from other areas. The land will grow and reproduce, and over time you will have grass so thick and trees in abundance, so that you will have a hard time walking through it. But this dose not take place “overnight”. Plants and trees do not reproduce themselves in a 24 hour day. This LAW of reproduction had to take place, therefore how ever long this time was, was simply sufficient for God to see that it had been done according to his commandment, and when it was DONE, then God said it was GOOD and called that period of time THE THIRD DAY.
What I think is facinating about this is that God was smart enough not to make the Sun, Moon and Stars until AFTER this process of filling the earth with plants and trees was finished. If we did not have “seasons”, we could grow things year round. And in places like Alaska where the days of summer are 24 hours, things grow both faster and larger. Therefore since there was growth producing light constantly upon the earth for an indetermanate period of time, the earth brought forth at a faster rate than it dose today, when plant growth is dependent upon the days and seasons.
You do not need the Sun to grow plants, all you need is earth, water and a certain type of light. Whatever light exists of existed BEFORE THERE WAS A SUN. And this light is what gives life and allows even plants to grow. I have had animals all my life, dogs, horses, and cattle. When ever I plan on getting an animal, the FIRST thing I do is prepare a place for it to live, and then go buy the FOOD it’s going to need to eat to exist on. This is EXACTLY what God was doing. After God brought the light forth, then the earth with the waters and seas, then the plants and trees, for food, then the SUN and Stars to RULE over the day and night to produce “DAYS and YEARS”, - THEN AFTER THAT he made the animals and THEN AFTER THAT he created man.
When the Bible says; “And God saw that it was good.”, then it says “and the evening and the 1st, 2nd or 3rd day et. To say, “God saw that it was good.” is simply a was of saying that God saw that what he had done was FINISHED. It is no different than when we are doing a project of some sort, we get it finished to a certain point and we say “That’s good.” And then we move on to another part of the project. To then say after saying “And God saw that it was good.”, that the evening and morning were the 1st day, 2nd day et. is simply the way in which God named that period of time in which something was accomplished. Neither the 1st, 2nd, 3rd nor 4th day of creation, have to be all the same amount of time. Say for instance each day did not have to be a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand or a million years. What God called the first day could have been a hundred thousand years, what he called the second day could have been eight hundred thousand years. The third day could have been nine hundred and fifty thousand years, all more or less. The point is that it became considered the first, second, third day and so on AFTER God saw that what he wanted to accomplish was done or “GOOD”. Good enough to go on to the next step.
I have no idea how long all this took, I only know that it was NOT a 24 hour period, and that the Bible teaches NO SUCH THING, when you really read it and use your brain to think, not only about what it’s saying, but what it’s not saying. The Bible is not bringing up the fact that we compute time by the Sun and Stars. It IS NOT SAYING THAT, and yet we know that to be a FACT. But it is saying that the SUN and STARS were not made until the fourth day, and it is saying that plants and trees were created on the third day. So we know that plants and trees grew BEFORE there was sunshine. We can know more today, because in our time, we know that the earth is not flat, and that it revolves around the Sun. Since knowledge has increased in our time, we can know the true story of Genesis. Those that refuse to look at these facts once they are shown then, are simply reverting back to teachings of the Church that were forced on people, when then still believed the earth was flat.
This concept of a day being actually longer that a literal 24 hour period, is carried on by other usages of the word “day” in the Bible. Such as when the word day is spoke on as referring to a time in history consisting of many days and even years, such as when we hear an older person use the term in saying “Well in MY DAY things were so and so...”. This dose not refer to a 24 hour period, but to a period of time consisting of both days and years, even centuries, depending on the context.
From the third day, when God established THE LAW OF REPRODUCTION, he also shows that what took place later on the fifth and sixth days, had to have taken more than a 24 hour period of time.
The FIFTH DAY
Gen. 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales (the first air breathing mammals, so “breath life” as we know it was first brought forth on the 5th day.) and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly.
Now let me ask you a question. WHERE did the first life come from? That is, WHERE and FROM WHAT did GOD create and take it from?
Gen. 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life,
Had you ever thought of that before? Have you ever considered that the first life “CAME OUT OF THE WATER”? I am not saying it “EVOLVED”! But I am saying exactly what the Bible says, that it CAME OUT OF THE WATER. God commanded the water itself to produce life; “LET THE WATERS BRING FORTH ABUNDANTLY THE MOVING CREATURE THAT HAS LIFE.” Now HOW God did this, how he “created” it and made it happen and how long he took to do it, I don’t know. But I do know one thing and that is that after these creatures were created and brought forth out of the water, that it says that “God saw that it was good”. But he did not stop there and say that was the Fifth Day, He went on to do more in that time period, which show clearly that the Fifth Day was much longer than a 24 hour period of time.
Gen. 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY, AND FILL THE WATERS IN THE SEAS, AND LET THE FOWL MULTIPLY IN THE EARTH. AND THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE FIFTH DAY.
All of these creatures created thus far, were commanded to multiply after their kind and fill the waters and the earth. THIS TOOK SOME TIME! And it is not until God saw that this was done, that he then choose to say that the period of time known as the FIFTH DAY was finished. God already had the plants and the trees reproducing according to his laws, on their own. Now the sea mammals, the fish and the birds had to do the same thing. This all took an indeterminate amount of time. But God dose not say to us “Well according to “your time” it took me 2 seconds to actually create the whales and the fowl, but then it took them a thousand years to mate and reproduce and fill up the water and the earth. No God dose not tell us how long all of this took, but he expects us to use our brain, by looking around at how things have reproduced ever since, and “get a clue”.
So far, you can see from what we know to be true in the world around us, as well as what the Bible literally states, that there is much more to the story of creation, than what we were taught in Sunday School. These things are very hard for us to accept, since most of us have believed and sworn by the 24 hour time frame, 6 days of creation. But now what comes next on the Sixth day when man was created will even stretch your mind further, and be even harder to accept. However as you will see, either what I am about to show you is true, or your whole Bible will fall apart into contradiction and error, when you really look at it.
THE SIXTH DAY
Gen. 1:24 And God said, Let the EARTH bring forth the living creature after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Here again, we have a period of time, the time it takes to first bring these things forth out of the “EARTH”, as well as it takes for them to all reproduce after their kind. On the Fifth Day, God created and brought forth the whales, fish and birds out of the WATER. What their bodies, their “flesh” primarily consisted of God made out of WATER. But here we see for the first time, where the creatures are made from the EARTH.
Gen. 1:24 And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Some creatures were made out of water, some out of earth. Those that exist and swim in the water and those that primarily fly in the heavens were brought forth from water. Those that live on the earth were made from the earth itself. Even the very flesh of these animals attests to this fact. The flesh of air breathing mammals, fish and birds is different not only from one another, but primarily different from animals on the earth. We see this truth every time we go to the supermarket and look at the meat counter at all the chicken, fish, beef and lamb. In my opinion I don’t think God originally crated “pigs”, but that they were a cross breed, something that got bread out of it’s “KIND”, maybe a cross between a bear and a hippo, and that is why the meat was considered “unclean”. But that is just my own personal theory. However everything else we have seen thus far, is not just my “own” theory, it’s all true to fact. It’s true from what we know from life, nature and science itself, and it is true as to what the Bible is just stating word for word. The only thing that make it different is that it is not what we were taught in Sunday School on the FLANNEL BOARD.
Gen. 1:25 And God made the beat of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind and every thing that creeps upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The “heavens and the earth” did not exist before God created them. That is what heaven or open expanse and what earth, or dry land, dirt rocks et. consist of did not exist before God created it. However something else did exist, something else has existed all along with whoever and whatever God is, and that is WATER. Water like God, just always was. And in the Bible water and God are inseperably linked, spirit and water are always spoken of in the same terms and always linked together. Just take a look at a few of the Biblical references to this.
Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the WATERS.
The word “waters” is used 7 times in Genesis 1. Seven denotes spiritual perfection.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
4:14 But whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst: but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Rev. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Water is the number one ingredient you must have to have and sustain life. Water and spirit are inseperably linked. When it comes to understanding what God did on the Sixth day we need to understand this concept.
(rest of article edited out here.)
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
| 84 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:26 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|