 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Jake
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 1/8/2002 9:23 AM (GMT -6) |   |
It seems to me that there is alot of evidence out there that points to evolution. So much so that we as Christians can't simply turn away and just excuse it as not being true. It almost seems as though God kind of created, then let it evolve, then created, and so on. How does this fit in with Christianity and also open theism?
Look forward to any comments!
Jake
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/8/2002 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay, for my two cents' worth...
First, I've wrestled with this issue myself, but finally came to a conclusion: based on Exodus 20 and Deut 5 (these passages being where the Ten Commandments are iterated), I believe just as God said: in six days He made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is within them.
For every argument there is about evolution, there's equal argument to both refute it and offer a sound, Biblical answer - see answersingenesis.org for this kind of information.
Ken Ham (founder of Answers In Genesis) is a bit aggressive but I respect his mission. He works hot and hard to hold the position he believes the Bible supports; a six day creation. Frankly, I've found this, too, to be the most sound belief for me.
At any rate, I know there's many out there who disagree and, as someone I remember used to say, "you have the right to be wrong!". HA HA!!!
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 1/8/2002 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | And I agree with Kenneth Miller who is also a believer and a Cell biologist, he believes the earth is roughly 4.5 Billion years old--so does Hugh Ross, he is an Astrophysicist who believe in an old earth creation. Personally I would not go with Ken Hamm if I were you, I am no evolutionist or creationist, but he commits quite a few logical fallacies when he defends creationism. I am thinking about learning more about Ken Hamm from a friends Dad (he missions ken hamm's creation beliefs to people over seas) to understand the position better, who knows, maybe I will buy into him. A while back I wrote Kenneth Miller an email, this is part of the response:
> Have you heard of Ken Ham (try not to laugh to hard)?
Of course. Answers in Genesis. *I added the link here, not kenneth miller*
> Is his work even
>appreciated among self respecting scientist's?
Not at all. In fact, the "Intelligent Design" folks at the
Discovery Institute were steamed that the final episode of
the PBS evolution series in September featured Ken Ham in
the "What about God?" progra.
> I read an excerpt from a book
>entitled, Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium. In the first 2 pages--I
>am no scientist, but I just took a logic class--he commits a logical fallacy.
>He assumes that because the kids in this certain class are acting up, the
>reason is their text books teach evolution, in a nutshell that is what he
>says.
Yup. Not to mention the fact that Darwin is responsible for pornography,
homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia. . . . according to Ken Ham.
God Bless
Paul
Our natural greatness is seen as part of God's image, and that natural greatness has been conferred on us to enable us to achieve our supernatural destiny:to be related to God and to obey him freely.---Diogenes Allen | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/8/2002 2:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Faithfullservant,
Okay, now hang on a sec here...
First, Ken's a brilliant and sharp character. He's no dummie. Second, there are respectable and notable scientists both on his staff and who support his work. He lists them on his site, and there's interviews with others periodically. (okay, I'm worked up...let's put the gloves on..."puttim' up, PUUUTIM' UP": Lion from the Wizard of Oz!)
As to a few things you mentioned...
quote:
Not at all. In fact, the "Intelligent Design" folks at the
Discovery Institute were steamed that the final episode of
the PBS evolution series in September featured Ken Ham in
the "What about God?" progra.
WHO specifically in Intelligent Design is against Ken Ham, particularly with regard to his appearance on the PBS Special?
quote:
> I read an excerpt from a book
>entitled, Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium. In the first 2 pages--I
>am no scientist, but I just took a logic class--he commits a logical fallacy.
>He assumes that because the kids in this certain class are acting up, the
>reason is their text books teach evolution, in a nutshell that is what he
>says.
Can you type it out word for word...at least the pertinent part, so I can see for myself? I don't have the book.
quote:
Yup. Not to mention the fact that Darwin is responsible for pornography,
homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia. . . . according to Ken Ham.
Well, you're gonna have to give me the documentation on this one. Because I'm sure Ken believes that all that stuff's been going on loooooong before Darwin ever hit the scene! He may mean that thanks to Darwin's evolution it has gotten worse these last years, but I'd like to see the quote myself, if you have it.
Well, as I mentioned in another post, I've GOT to go watch Toystory II now! To infinityyyyyyyy and...and...well, and just a little further, I suppose! (who needs to go much beyond that!)
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 1/8/2002 2:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman and faithfullservent, you guys should get your own show—I love reading your posts.  You could be like a theological Siskel and Ebert. Or, you could get together with Tom and do Mystery Science Theology.  Oops. I’m trying to be funny. Modes told me never to do that without warning people first…  Anyway, theology can be frustrating, but every once and a while it gets fun—especially when Doc gets going! pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“…through the open windows and doors came so much stimulation for thought and discussion that there was hardly time or love or zeal left for the task to be accomplished within the house itself.” § Karl Barth, The Humanity of God | | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/8/2002 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | |
I think the six days of creation could be six literal days. but i want to argue that it doesn't require it. i personally believe that the day-age theory is correct. it leaves room for the possibility of some type of evolution(micro?) too. somebody argue against me. starkman?
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/9/2002 1:39 AM (GMT -6) | | June,
Okay, I'll give it a whirl...
You said, "I think the six days of creation could be six literal days. but i want to argue that it doesn't require it.
Now, STRICTLY from a first-time reading of Scripture - you've never read Genesis before, okay. You know nothing about evolution. As far as you're concerned, "evoloution" was an engine Harley Davidson put out a few years ago (it really was!). Now, let's look at the opening line of your post again: I think the six days of creation could be six literal days.
Consider Exodus 20:11 and Deut 5 where the Ten Commandments are again reiterated; the statement of the six day creation isn't mentioned directly, but it's obviously to be included in view of the references of working six days, resting on the Sabbath. And consider Exodus 31:17. One could not help but take this lterally. One wouldn't think otherwise unless one was just refusing to think that God couldn't do this. Otherwise, there'd be no reason whatsoever to not take it for what it says.
Jesus refered to Genesis - the creation of Adam and Eve very literally. There's no reason to doubt it happened the way Scripture records it. I believe the same must be true for the way Scripture states "in six days God created the heavens and the earth and the seas...".
Now granted there are some approaches to the concept of days: long days, short days, days influenced by perspective (time-continuum), etc., but FIRST and FOREMOST, I believe we should ALWAYS start with Scripture and let it speak authoritatively. God has not been vague nor has He left us wondering just what he meant.
The word "day" used in the creation of the days themselves ("And the first day...") in Hebrew is "yom". According to what I've read, the usage of the word must mean a literal day because of the semantic construction; there's the usage of number and, um...rats, what was it (mind you, I couldn't read a word of Hebrew if a Rabbi offered me TWO barmitsfas and a cap! I'm using info I've gathered!)? You can find the arguments listed at answersingenesis.org by just doing a simple search for yom. The first 5-6 documents will well cover the issue.
But again, even if you knew nothing about the Hebrew, the literality of the passage requires no reason to not accept it for what it says, particularly in view of the reiterations and other references to the passage.
Finally, science and history can come into view to add clarity and information, but NOT to be the authority first and then "Well, okay, now let's see if Scripture backs it up". That's the first and foremost reason I agree with Ken Ham. You don't start with anything else first but with God and His Word. Sure, there may be some issues that arise, but let God's Word speak for the authority it is, and let EVERYTHING else be found in submission to it and as a commentary on the Word, not the other way around. And, as I understand it, this was the case until Darwin (and a few years before him) came along.
Well, there's so much more, but this is certainly a start!
For the coversation (and breakfast before for I faint!)
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/9/2002 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | |
i looked up 'yom' at studylight.org and it said it could mean a 24 hour period OR a period of time in general. i don't know anything about hebrew sentence structure but that's what i found anyway.
don't you think that the world also gives us information about God? can't science shed light on the bible? didn't galileo use science as a way to look and the awesome wonder and power of God? Okay, lets say for a minute that you are right. what do you do with the fossil record? what do you do with the dinosaurs? certainly they are older than 6000 years!?
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/9/2002 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey June,
Regarding yom, you won't find the Hebrew rules, symantics or context usage this easily! You have to know the language, the nuances, the grammatical rules, etc. There's some great scholoarly documents you can read if you go to answersingenesis.org and search for the word yom. Also, search for http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp (just copy and paste it). There's more than enough info here that's well researched to come to some answers about the usage of the word in Genesis.
About dinosaours... did you know that there was found an Australian hat in some caves no older than about 50 years and it was completely fossilized! Fossilized in 50 years!
There's plenty of counter evidence to answer the evolution theories. You really want to become familiar with just how much is out there but isn't brought out to the forefront by the media or secular scientists.
It's been shown that layers of earth, rock layers, formations, caverns, etc., can all be formed very quickly. It's just not cut and dry, that's for sure!
Were we to never have heard of Darwin, we'd be much more inclined to take Genesis' creation account for what it says and discover that science - were it to have maintained its original "discovery" method by many scientists who believed in a god of some sort - we'd have far less understanding because much of the information and evidences would be more out in the open.
Do some reading at answersingenesis.org (and there's more creation organizations than them, for sure, which you can check) and see if that doesn't give ya more to digest!
Hey, for the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/10/2002 5:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey all,
There have been many interpretations of the first tablet found in Genesis 1-2 throughout Church history. This 1st tablet has caused such great difficulty and division within Christendom and other world religions as well. Since the time of enlightenment with all its new blooming scientific discoveries (e.g. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc.) one begins to question church tradition, as well as Biblical truth. For example, Galileo was accused by the Catholic church of heresy, for asserting that the earth moves and that it revolves around the sun, thus, not the center. However, a little later what Galileo had proposed had turned out to be true and undeniable. Yet one must ask, “was the Bible incorrect or was the particular interpretation of the Bible incorrect. Being that all truth is and must be God’s truth than it becomes obvious that the latter is true. However, what does this have to do with the 1st tablet’s proper interpretation? Easy, just as the Bible didn’t fall with regards to scientific fact with Galileo, so the 1st tablet as recorded in Genesis 1-2 doesn’t stand or fall due to scientific theory (e.g. evolution).
The question now becomes, how should one interpret the first tablet without taking away from God’s creating it, as well as, without running into such obvious scientific chronological problems. From my understanding, and not out of mere apolegical convenience, the best probable interpretation for the text begets a literary and not a literal interpretation.
The 1st tablet, if looked at closely, reads as an artistic two-dimensional prose. Thus, it is not surprising when forming the pattern of the week of creation it was written as an artistic anthropomorphism, which was not meant to be taken literally. The authors intention was merely to bring out certain themes and provide a theology for the Sabbath. This was done to show humanity the relationship between creation to God and what is its significance is for mankind. It is important to note that the author recognizes ordinary days but takes them in the context of one large figurative whole. That is, the order of the days no longer cause a problem for the earth's distant past or for the delay in the creation of the stars.
Within the literary interpretation one finds symmetry between the two triads of days. Now, coming from such an artistic writer, one can easily see the plain straightforward meaning, as in two-dimensional pros (that is a story told with deeper meaning ex., Metaphor or parable), so it shouldn't be surprising when setting out the pattern of seven days.
· Day 1 (3-5) “light" (WITH) Day 4 (14-19) abiotic inhabitants, luminaries
· Day 2 (6-8) “sky and sea" (WITH) Day 5 (20-23) biotic inhabitants, birds & fish
· Day 3 (9-10) “dry land & veg. (WITH) Day 6 (24-31) biotic “ , “land animals & food”
Day 7 (2:1-3) finishing the 1st tablet with the climax of Sabbath.
Within the first triad of days we find places. However, with the 2nd triad of days (4-6) we find their inhabitance regarding earth & heavens. Simply put days 1-3 deals with creating the habititat and days 4-6 fill that habitat. Thus the heavens were finished in 1-3 and all that filled the heavens and earth (4-6). Within every day there is morning and evening, however, on the 7th day there is not. As far as the author is concerned that day has never finished. God’s rest signifies the end of creation, and this is deliberate, it is still continuing!
God’s rest seems to be signifying the completion of creation, and the use of the anthropomorphic outline (regarding the week). The completion allowed the author to outline a theology of the Sabbath. This theme seems to be closest to his heart. This narrative has two peaks, mankind and the Sabbath. The creation of mankind crowns the work and the Sabbath is its supreme goal. You see, the Sabbath actually relativizes the works of mankind, that is, the contents of the six working days. It protects man from total absorption by the task of subduing the earth; it anticipates the distortion which makes work the sum and purpose of human life. Thus, the essence of mankind is not work, rather, the purpose of creation is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
This narrative has two peaks, mankind and the Sabbath. The creation of mankind crowns the work and the Sabbath is its supreme goal. God today is still rejoicing in his creation today that’s why no end of day.
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 1/10/2002 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/10/2002 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tiggers,
Well first let me say that according to what I've read in what's amounted to be very little church history, there wasn't all that much argument about the literality of the six day creation interpretation. I could be wrong, so I'll have to check. It was, however, during the enlightment era that things went bonkers. But it's good to remember that so many of the scientists themselves held to a belief in God and not in an evolution concept. (there's still the ape-man charts being tossed out by educators when that stuff was shown to be even fraudulent in some cases). Once Darwin hit the scene, it was out of a lot of pressure (as I remember reading) that evolutional concepts began their stronghold; people didn't want to go against the grain. I'd have to dig up the research, though, to really back this up.
Upon a first time reading of Genesis 1 and 2 - no predjudices, no pressuppositions - one would have no reason to not take literally what Genesis records as the creation account, unless one thinks to themselves "Nah, can't be. I just can't buy this". How do we escape from God reiterating it in Exodus 20 and 31? Jesus' take on a literal interpretaion of Adam and Eve when commenting about divorce advances the cause. And Eve, Scripture plainly says, was created out of a rib (okay so men aren't really missing a rib because of all of that!)
There's nothing anthropomorphic with regard to the days themselves, no hint of allegory or anything like that. It's recorded straight and to the point. And, as I mentioned, there's the rules which govern the usage of yom clearly demanding a simple, literal interpretation of the days (see the articles I mentioned above on Ham's site).
I suppose if we held to a pre-adamic earth and a re-creation to account for a gap of some sort (I used to hold to this), we could ask "Why should it matter? What is gained or lost?" Well, I can't escape the clear and simple meaning of what is conveyed: six days, rest on the seventh. If I play with these verses, I might as well play with the rest of it; Joshua's long day, Hezekiah's clock going back (or was it forward) a few degrees, etc, Elija being taken up in a chariot, and, of all of them not to play with, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Oh, there's a lot of evidence to back it up, but believe you me it's been through the ringer, and still goes through it, by laymen and scholars who just don't want to believe it or can't yet believe it. But it's true. Scripture was very, very clear about it. Scripture is no less clear about those days of creation, I believe.
Science comes into submission to God's Word, and I haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that the literal interpretation of Genesis is so vague, so obscure, so "well, it doesn't mean what it says here but anything else" that God really didn't do a very good job saying exactly what He meant. I just don't see that.
Well, I'm pretty well maxed out on the subject here (I hate that: I read and read and I...forget! Gads!)
Oh, and yes Tiggers, this does bring into view a wonderful concept called the Sabbath, which is brought to its fullness in the book Hebrews - in the Christ who brings eternal sabbath rest to us, in us, in Him! Man, those first few chapters are drenched in absolutely beautiful theology - enough to drowned one in awe!
Hey there, Faithfullservant,
I read the pages from your link to Ham's book. Now I'd only ask this: what is it he said in those first pages that's so untrue? I have kids here who vouch for what's going on in their schools - well, they go to another school now since we moved. It's completely true that kids are more and more aggressive and that in view of our country's departure from a faith in God. And add evolution teaching into the program (my kids will vouch that it was being done in their own schools and that they can't even say the word "Christmas" in some classes), you're going to end up with more and more disobedience.
As for Ham's young earth arguments, I'll have to re-read them...I've done forgotten some of them...matter of fact, I don't think I've read some of them in the first place! Time, time, time!!!
At any rate, that's where I'm coming from.
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/11/2002 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | |
starkman,
it would be nice if would could read genesis without presuppositions, but we can't. we can't just disregard what the earth tells us. creation around us helps us know about God. true we should look to scripture first, but not only.
what if genesis isn't chronological? how (and why) was light created before the sun? maybe day one pairs up with day four? 2-5? 3-6?
if you believe that God created in literal days, do you believe that the earth is 6000 years old? maybe there is a ton of history between Noah and Abraham that we just don't know.
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/11/2002 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey June,
Let me first say that I guess I should have qualified what I meant by presuppositions. Yes, we do approach Genesis with presuppositions. For that matter we approach most anything in life that way; we believe a chair will hold us up when we sit down. I'd just say that it's which presupposition we bring to Genesis that counts.
We should first believe God's Word is truth, that He has said what He meant and meant very clearly what He said. We should also accept what is in God's Word as literal until we're led IN SCRIPTURE elswhere to believe otherwise.
Now June, you said this - we can't just disregard what the earth tells us. creation around us helps us know about God. and I wouldn't disagree. The heavens and the earth declare the glory of God. But look what you said next: true we should look to scripture first, but not only..
Now, I think you're saying we should put Scripture first, but it's the statement "but not only" that concerns me. If by this you mean "Hey, let's let the earth speak, too, about God", I'd say fine. But if you mean, "let's make what the earth says equal" or "in addition to Scripture, that's where I believe we go astray here and have to be very carefull, not just about creation but about anything where we would put God's Word only on equal footing.
I stress: God's Word MUST rule in all areas, period. This is really the only attraction I have to Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. He is right about this much, and anything else he doesn't quite have right, I can live with. But none of us, June, none of us can afford to let anything else about anything else speak authoritatively as an equal to God's Word.
Do you know how many times science has to constantly adjust preconceived theories and "facts" in view of technological and scientific developments? What they find often times rules out what they believed was so sure. And hey, that's science. That's what it's all about. But God's Word never changes, never gets adjusted to fit anything. Let me qualify this by saying it never gets changed from it's true and real meaning. If Genesis is not plain, clear - "And in six days...and the morning and evening were one day...and God created the heavens, the earth, the seas and all that's within them" - and means anything else than what it says, I'd say, "Okay, we're not changing God's Word, we just interpreted it wrongly". But if that's not the case, we MUST be brave enough to say "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me." Science, astronomy, evolutional theory will all come into perspective sooner or later. It always has.
Okay, moving on here!
You mentioned this: if you believe that God created in literal days, do you believe that the earth is 6000 years old? maybe there is a ton of history between Noah and Abraham that we just don't know.
If there were more time in between Abe and Noah, it doesn't change the literality. Remember, God's Word is not about chronology, astronomy, explaining how things were done, etc. unless it contributes to a theological concept toward the greater work in Christ. God's not interested in saying "Okay, today let's talk about astronomy". That's not what Scripture's for, but He does use it for His purposes. That the world may be 10,000 years old is fine with me. That God used evolution to make man? Completely contradictive to Scripture's simple and literal, "Hey, this is what I mean to say (God speaking) about it all".
Here's a good question you've asked, June, along these lines: what if genesis isn't chronological? how (and why) was light created before the sun? maybe day one pairs up with day four? 2-5? 3-6?
Probably one of the greatest forgotten concepts about Genesis - and it's very sad when it's overlooked by Christian theologians - is the beautiful relationship theology that's being established in those very few chapters on creation and not the science of it all.
Think about it! What's the first thing man is presented with when he's created? Freewill, free choice, opportunity to glorify God in relationship (what else is all this for if it isn't for that?). The creation account serves the purpose as does all of Scripture to make a statement to us about who and what He is and who and what we are; a relationship to be built. The minute account of creation is just that because it's a backdrop to something else.
And so, God delivers to Moses the essence of how it was done to convey WHY He did it. That science can learn more of it is because God made it that way. That astronomy should contribute to discovering the truth of it is because God made it that way. That God uses money, clothing, food, morals, men and women, animals, contracts, shoes, blood, war, peace, etc., is because uses these day to day things in which we live in to ultimately convey something about relationship.
We however, reverse the process often times because of fear that someone really has shown evolution to be true or that science has proven that creation must have taken billions of years because "we have evidence". And so we start with what's being said by scientists, scholars and doctors (who, by the way, are constantly having adjust these evidences") and God's Word has dangerously been placed second...done with such psychological subtley that it's just the thought "Well, I'm only trying be fair in my assesment".
God made...in Six days...there was evening and morning...and God created the heavens, the earth, the seas and all that's in them!
The sun created on the forth day? Sure, why not! I mean in the new heaven and earth to come there isn't even a sun to light up the skys; the glory of God does this! The information given about the creation of the sun isn't to confuse the issue, but to say something about why, not how God, did this. I mean, really, in only two chapters God has told us the whole story? No! But He expects us, I believe, to first understand that that wasn't His purpose and we should still take what He said literally.
Is it impossible for God to have created a revolving world in the dark, void of space - there's a great theological concept, had His glory to shine on the earth from a 24 hour base - another perspective, the 24 hour base we live in - and later add the sun? Is that impossible to believe? God's glory as a light is both not out of the question, but contributes to a theological concept of the "day" when all is said and done. This is where so much is lost and therefore leaves many to fetch an interpretation elsewhere.
As I mentioned there are only two chapters...two on creation, and one at that with details; chapter 2 is a recap moving more toward the Adam and Eve relationship thing with God. Only two chapters! So, we go to science for an explanation. Fine, but be thorough: consider both sides of scientists who take opposite sides of the issue. You'll always find enough evidence on the creation side to say "Well, I'm not getting all the answers yet, but there's enough to tell me Scripture isn't to be placed second or that it isn't to be taken literally." This applies whether it's the fossil issue (remember the Austrailian hat I mentioned), the dinosaurs, the chronological account, the stars, light, etc.
Well, my pour fingers are freezing! I mean, I've put up plastic on the walls, but this is MinneSNOWta...though, it sure hasn't snowed much!
Hey, for the conversation, June!!!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 01/11/2002 5:08:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/12/2002 4:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
i didn't mean that we should look upon scripture as equal to anything else. it is obviously the word of God and must come first. but i am saying we must also look to the earth too, but this comes second. however, if the earth and scripture are in total contrast, i think it means we as misinterpreting something. didn't Galileo get blasted by the catholic church with verses that led them to believe the earth was the center of the universe? seems that nature was right and scripture was either taken out of context, or misinterpreted.
i don't think this is such a cut and dry issue that we can say for certainty its one way or the other. we would be foolish to not look at all the evidence that we can, even if it goes against something we might believe.
i am not at all going to say humans evolved from apes. humans are the pinnacle of creation. but what if he allowed some microevolution to occur? there is too much evidence to not at least think about he possibility. scientific evolution has not built its case on total lies.
alright if God created the sun on the fourth day, how to we know the first three days were twenty four hours? don't we base our days on the earth compared to the sun?
trying to figure stuff out,
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/13/2002 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey All,
I get so busy at times that I’m just not able to follow up and respond. Hey Starkman, sorry to hear you’re in-between jobs, brother. I know how important that income can be (sheesh…and do I ever)! Anyways, for what it’s worth, my prayers are with ya!
Hey Starkman,
Regarding Church History, and your assertion “there wasn’t all that much argument about the literality of the six day creation interpretation” I will agree that there was not a great deal of ARGUMENT over the Literal six day THEORY, but then there wasn’t that much argument over any of the other theories either. For example, I remember my past theology Professor proclaiming that St. Augustine’ theory of Creation revolved around God creating the universe in one day, but explaining it for theological reasons to the author in 6 or 7 (I forget which) for mere theological reasons. You see, for Augustine (I think) felt God’s power was at stake, by taking literally that it took God 6 days to create the Universe, and on top of that, on the 7th day He needed to rest from it all! Augustine couldn’t have this (due to obvious presups) so he saw the omnipotent God creating it all in 1 day and not six or by evolutionary means. Now, while there may not have been great argument over this theory it was still out there in history, as I’m sure there were others. However, I do concur with you when you proclaim, “during the enlightenment era that’s [when] things went bonkers.”
StarkMan,
You assert, “Upon a first time reading of Genesis 1 and 2 - no predjudices, no pressuppositions - one would have no reason to not take literally what Genesis records as the creation account, unless one thinks to themselves "Nah, can't be.”
Tigger’s Reply,
“NO PRESUPPOSITIONS”?
StarkMan,
“ How do we escape from God reiterating it in Exodus 20 and 31?”
Tigger’s Reply,
Ok, if these Scriptures do anything at all they seem to back up a literary reading and not a literal reading. You see, it’s crying out for a theological and not a chronological meaning in the text. I believe God created everything, and I believe that humanity is distinct from animal in creation (not evolved), sooo, these scriptures create no problem for me at all!
StarkMan,
“There's nothing anthropomorphic with regard to the days themselves, no hint of allegory or anything like that. It's recorded straight and to the point.”
Tiggers Reply,
Ouch, brother! If the record is merely straight forward and literal than why even use Exodus 31:15-17 to forward your case. I mean the use of the days are pretty theologically symbolic of how one should live according to God.
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
I gotta book the Packer game is on (Can’t miss those Pack)! Get back to ya on Monday. LOL!
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/14/2002 3:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tiggers,
Yeah, I'm in that in-between job thing. Okay, breath...breeeeeath! We're trusting God, we are. I'm fighting this darned sinus infection, too, so pray brother!!!
Okay, let's rap!
Augustine's theory: theory, you know (as you well noted in caps!)
You mentioned my quote: “Upon a first time reading of Genesis 1 and 2 - no predjudices, no pressuppositions..., and you added "Tigger’s Reply,“NO PRESUPPOSITIONS”?
Well, note my quote to June where I kind of fixed that! "Let me first say that I guess I should have qualified what I meant by presuppositions. Yes, we do approach Genesis with presuppositions. For that matter we approach most anything in life that way; we believe a chair will hold us up when we sit down. I'd just say that it's which presupposition we bring to Genesis that counts."
Yeah, there's presupps, that's for sure. But man, if we didn't have all this other crap following us, we'd be so much more inclined to just say "Whoa, six days, eh, God? Pretty cool!" I mean, I sure wouldn't think that God really had to rest (panting, gasping and struggling for air!) on the seventh day!
You know, too, Tiggers, I agree one hundred percent that the Genesis account is theological...very, very much so. I was even pondering about it yesterday as I was reading Romans 4; Abe's faith. The movement of God from the creation account into the scene of the father of our faith. Truely, as you said so well, it's crying out for theological understanding.
But I have to admit concern for what you said here: if these Scriptures do anything at all they seem to back up a literary reading and not a literal reading.
Tiggers, I believe the only reason one could believe that is if they came to the text with the wrong presuppositions; already having concluded that it is just impossible that God could have created the way the text says. I gotta say again what you quoted me saying: “There's nothing anthropomorphic with regard to the days themselves, no hint of allegory or anything like that. It's recorded straight and to the point.”
You asked why I even used Exodus 31 to foward my case if the text is literal. My doing so doesn't invalidate the creation account or any other commentaries in Scripture on the subject. I'm just merely noting what God's repeated (once again, for theological issues) as more documentation, that's all. I believe God is reiterating because of the theology. I'm simply bringing that to light. But the literality hasn't been sacrificed. There's just no reason based on the text to conclude otherwise, in my opinion.
June asked about how the days could be literal if the sun hadn't even been created until the 4th day. Now HERE is where the theology rock and rolls! (well, it does all along, but it just becomes more and more evident)
Considering God is light - note that in Revelation there is no need of a sun for light, and considering that Revelation makes use of so much of the creation language for theological/relationship purposes, and considering the creation accounts to be literal (I do), I come up with something of the following - very rough draft, mind you, but something I'm keeping on the back burner.
The literality of the opening verses gives us an empty world, a yet-to-be-completed-purposes-of-God world. Light(!) is the first thing created amidst the darkness; division! Light and darkness. Light is called "day" (more heavy duty stuff), and the darkness "night" (getting thicker!). there is already the dripping theology of relationship anticipated! Here then, as we jump foward, is the framework for a context of those six days.
It's a given that nothing can live without sun, air, etc. Ah, but nothing can live and have sustanence without God's light; for man shall not live by eating bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds out of God's mouth! And truely God's Word is light!
Here then is why a 24 hour period, even one three days before the sun comes into play, can and should be taken literally: because the theology supports what the text already says. It's in and out throughout the whole Word of God. The earth lives and rotates in the light of God (just as Revelation, too, states we'll live in the light of God). More than just physics to figure out by science, it's the very concept of relationship theology being presented.
Rather than just the phrase "The glory of God" illuminated the earth, no, I'd be more wanting to go along the lines of "The very necessity of God's glory set the context of life (based on 24 hour cycles) as a statement of the beginning of man's stage setting for relationship with God".
That evening and morning are clearly mentioned is without doubt. That it is meant by this that this evening and morning are not literal because there's yet to be a sun is to miss the point of the real textual issue: GOD is framing a building a stage for mankind to relate to God. His essence and light is built into the concept of the 24 hour period. Day and Evening are merely expressions (though literal) to foward the CONCEPT which is later sustained by the usage of sun, moon, orbits, etc. I must stress: this is a sustainer of what God had already purposed and personally interacted with as He created!
Rather than looking at "And there was evening and morning, the first (or second, third, etc.) day" as non-literal because there' no astronomical bodies yet, is to miss, I believe, the heart of what a 24 hour period means and what God as light to the creation means. Suns and moons merely sustain an antecedent...as I see it!
Well, rats, I've got to go...see the doctor, find a job (oh, if heaven will mean anyting it will NOT be "Say, what's the help-wanted look like today?"!
Oh, and Packer's fan, are you? Hmmm! I'm becoming more and more a Minnesotian, but hek, I go back to the Raiders some 25 years ago. That's about the extent of my football (although, Mom is sending me some ice skating to watch!).
Hey, have a great one in Him!
For the Master,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/14/2002 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | StarkMan,
My prayers are with ya, Brother (for real  )! Hey, you have given me more food for thought...sweet, though I may not have the chance to get back to ya today (I need to go design some t-shirts for the church )!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/14/2002 1:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm, you design T-shirts, do you?
Hmmm! Let's see, can I think of something I'd like to have on a T-shirt? YES! "Donations: send money (and free subscriptions to Gormet Chef) to...
Just kidding!
Yak at ya later,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
June
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 1/15/2002 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | |
starkman or tiggers,
please help me figure were i'm going wrong. if i'm understanding you right, you're saying that God was the light that illuminated, why did he say "let there be light"? Why didn't God just create the sun on that first day? What would confine God to creating the first three days in 24 hour periods? because that would come later doesn't force him to create the first three in 24 hours.
help me out.
June
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/15/2002 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | June & StarkMan,
First And Most Importantly, StarkMan, any good news? You have a great mind and I’m sure you’ll have no problem attaining a job. Now, on to a more secondary issue…
Great point June, truly! It seems to me that the literalist wants to proclaim the 1st tablet of creation to be taken chronologically literal, and straightforward; however, it is in my opinion that the straightforward meaning of the text is literary (it’s screaming for it)! You’re making this more and more clear to me ! I don’t believe my presupposition revolves around a naturalistic worldview, but rather a supernatural one. God created the Universe out of nothing, however in doing this, he also set up a natural process of laws that guide our universe. These very laws are what beget the possibility of the miraculous (supernatural) possible. Now, I know God is the direct cause for the miraculous, but what I’m asserting here is that if there weren’t natural laws in place, than seeing what Christians proclaim to be a supernatural occurrence would be most improbable. Anyways, before I go too far off on a tangent, one last thing, if the day is to be taken literally (evening and morning, or if you prefer “light” and darkness) within the first tablet, how does one account for the 7th day never ending. To me the plain reading of the text is poetical in nature, which I’m sure you’d agree was quiet commonly done in the Old Testament, and for that matter the N.T. as well. “Well, enough chit chat Chet” (Weird Science ), I gotta get back to work. LOL
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/15/2002 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Just for the record, very few in church history took everything in Genesis 1-3 literally. Most have assumed aspects of it, including sometimes the "six days," were symbolic. The dogmatic insistence that the days must be literal came about in the middle of the 19th century, largely from the Adventist movement (which insisted the days MUST be literal since they placed such an emphasis on the Sabaath being literally the 7th day). Forster and Marsden's book "Faith, Science and Religion" has an outstanding section on the history of this issue.
This doesn't mean that the text doesn't intend to teach six literal days. But it does expose the myth that this teaching was somehow a staple of orthodox theology throughout history, as some Young Earth Creationists teach.
For my two cents, I don't see what the big issue is about.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 1/15/2002 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's a perspective that may be helpful, from Hugh Ross. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.html
quote:
The frame of reference in Genesis 1:1 is the cosmos. God declares that He brought into existence the entire physical universe-matter, energy, and all the space-time dimensions associated with matter and energy.
… Genesis 1:2 explicitly shifts the frame of reference, the narrator's vantage point, to the surface of Earth above the water but below the cloud layer.
Then, as he describes in this article, "let there be light" is a description of the clearing away of planetary debris that surrounded the earth.
This website has some good information, as do his books, such as
Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy.
The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God.
Magneton
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. Niels Bohr
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 1/15/2002 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
Thanks for chiming in King’s Kid  ! I’ll definitely check out Forster and Marsden's book "Faith, Science and Religion" for the historical background, thanks! Ok, now I do realize that this by no means is a primary issue (well, at least it shouldn’t be), nor should it effect how the Christian lives her/his life. Nevertheless, from an apologetic standpoint (not out of convenience) the view one holds on the creation account seems to make a difference when dialoging with an atheist. I personally experienced this while in dialogue with a newfound friend via e-mail. It seems that the greatest hurdle wasn’t the “problem of evil” but rather the assumption that all Christendom holds to a literal 6-day creation. For him, very scientifically minded and an atheist, felt this doctrine flew in the face of wisdom and science. Now, to the one who already has faith, whether she/he believes a literal, literary or whatever theory of creation should in theory pose no threat, but quite possibly to the atheist it may mean all the difference in the world. I have no problem with StarkMan’s literary view personally (quite frankly whether God created the world in 1 day wouldn’t change my faith at all, no problems…dig), but in reading the texts I truly see a more literary poetic prose giving birth to an awesome theological command on how to live our lives, furthermore, and on an apologetic side note, it seems to open doors with agnostics and atheist alike.
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
I realize that I made generalizations regarding atheists and agnostics for an apologetic purpose, and I realize that all generalizations are bound to break down at points; nevertheless, I still believe that generally more doors possibly open to fruitful dialog within a literary construction.
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
| 51 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:31 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 |
|
|