Students at Wheaton start Young Earth Club, show Young Earth film to the dismay of faculty

Got to do an awful lot of dishonest interpretation to make it happen. I like and respect atheists and agnostics much better than I like liberal "Christians." At least the A & A are not selling oh their belief system.

 

(1) Why are you posting this link? My views of Genesis have little to do with Dr. Walton's writing. I have read only the five page handout provided earlier in this thread, but it seemed quite helpful for students who were thinking through these issues.

(2) You made what is almost certainly a false assertion (twice) about Walton, claiming that he asserts that the "historical myths of the ancient cultures around Israel" are equally valid, even though you have CLEARLY not read his writing. I didn't specifically call you out on it the first time, but it is clear you have trouble reading the works of people you disagree with fairly. You've posted two hostile attacks on his writing that have a number of logical and biblical errors and neither one make the foolish claim that Walton is so ignorant that he would say that pagan myths are equally valid to scripture.

(3) You constantly misstate my views with leading questions that you ask over and over again, yet you rarely engage my responses other than to ask more leading questions or make repeated grand assertions that you still can't back up with scripture.

(4) Why don't you take the time to read Adam and the Genome or one of Walton's books so you can actually understand the evidence that is being presented instead of simply letting other people do your reading and thinking for you? As Christians, we are each responsible to God for what we do with our minds, our hearts, our bodies, and our opportunities. If what I have been saying is true, you are now responsible for that truth. You will be held accountable for rejecting it and promoting falsehoods instead. If what I am saying is false, then you should be able to refute the error to me and others, but the only way you can learn how to do that is to actually inform yourself about what I am actually talking about, not just repeat your assertions over and over.

(5) The truth revealed by the human genome is very strong and reliable. DNA is one of the most exact sciences we have today and we use it as evidence in courts of law, to restore children to their parents (as in the children who were separated from their parents at the border), to identify bodies, to track family lineages, to devise effective cures for cancer that work amazingly well, as well as many other things that I don't have room to mention. If you don't understand the basics of the findings of the human genome (that human beings are physically descended from a population of about 10,000 hominids), then you really can't effectively talk about it with someone who has a bit of scientific knowledge. You put those people (who are growing in number every day) into a situation where you demand that they accept a certain interpretation of the Bible that goes against science, or reject your interpretation of the Bible (which you insist is the only valid one) and consequently conclude that the Bible is false, when it is just your interpretation that is false. A person who has had a family member's life saved by genetic treatments from cancer KNOWS THAT SCIENCE IS TRUE. The tragedy is that they might not know that THE BIBLE IS ALSO TRUE because of your arguments.

 

Again, John Walton denies the literal historicity of the Genesis account, denies 6 days, even though the Hebrew used throughout the book would be a 24 hour Day time period, denies the historical accounts of the fall, as Jesus and paul saw it, denies the Adam and Eve as special creations of God... This is what happens to one who has shifted away from a fully inspired text, to one trying to acomodate it to fit "scientific facts"

 

Seems to some just want to fit into genesis what is assumed to be real "scientific facts", in order to acomodate the views of evolution.

 

That's absolutely false. The word used for day in Genesis 1-2 is "yom." Yom can be translated to mean varying lengths of time, from a part of a day to a season, to an era, to even meanings describing the age of a person.

Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom (day) to mean something other than a 24-hour day since Genesis 2:4 would claim that God created the earth and heavens and Adam and Eve in one 24-day, not six. That is one of the literary markers in these texts that demonstrate that they are not to be taken as literal, historical records! So your assertion immediately fails -- simply by reading the English translation -- in the very passage you claim to be defending. I could go through the whole book of Genesis as show the various ways that yom is used, but that one OBVIOUS example is enough to demonstrate you simply haven't looked carefully at the text.

So by your standard, Walton is correct and you are in serious error.

We've been through this. Neither Jesus or Paul dealt with the question, at least as it is recorded in scripture, and your misuse of their words does not prove your assertion. We've been through this before and you could not defend your assertion... you simply restated your opinion and/or gave me links that did not demonstrate what you assert.

If I were to take your comment about Walton where you said, "what else do we need to know?" and claim that you think that no one needs to know Jesus to be saved, you would rightfully scream that I am taking your words out of context, applying them to something you are not talking about, and twisting them to further my argument. You are doing something similar with Jesus and Paul when you take words on divorce or comparisons of the corruption of humankind in the flesh and redemption of humankind through the Spirit, and try to apply them in service of your argument that the days of Genesis 1-2 MUST be literal, 24-hour days. Jesus and Paul said no such thing.

I have no idea what Walton thinks about such things. I suspect you don't either since you get so many things wrong and haven't bothered to read Walton's work. For all you really know, he could believe that God created everything in a blink of an eye instead of taking six, 24-hour days to do it.

Honestly, that was my view before I really studied the Hebrew text back in the day. I had already noticed that Genesis 2:4 could be interpreted as one-day creation (with apparent age) and that the Genesis 1:1-2:3 was simply a poetic/musical way of God describing the wonders of His creation. I thought that the perhaps the six, 24-hour day, people didn't have enough faith to accept the scriptures for what they said. But I also knew enough to know what I didn't know.

So why don't you give up criticizing someone's work when you haven't lifted a finger to investigate it for yourself?

All you "know" about Walton is what you hear from his critics. Why should your assertion have any weight or meaning?

You still haven't backed up your defamation that claims Walton sees the pagan creation myth as being just as valid as Genesis 1-2. You have provided links that criticize Walton, but do not stoop to making that accusation. You consistently ignore my insistence that you provide evidence or retract your assertion. But you don't provide evidence, just condemnation. That's what Satan does. I presume you are a child of God. If you really are, either provide evidence or stop defaming a brother in Christ.

As far as I can tell, you haven't even considered the science behind what I have been talking about. And you don't have a clue what Walton might be doing since you won't lift a finger to read what he has written.

If you are going to make assertions about scripture, science, or your brothers and sisters in Christ, you need to have some knowledge about those subjects and persons. I don't see much knowledge and I don't see ANY curiosity to know more or investigate what has been claimed. All I see is blind condemnation.

 

https://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1
www.icr.org/article/meaning-day-genesis/

 

I am quite aware of the role of context in Hebrew. I am also quite aware of the argument that six-day creationists make in regard to Genesis 1. I can point out flaws with that reasoning from scripture, it I doubt it will make any difference to you since your basis of authority seems to be creationist sites.

But back to your response (another link!)...

You did not make the argument made in the link. You simply asserted that “the Hebrew used through the book would indicate a 24-hour time period...”, which is still an appallingly false statement. The very link you cited also demonstrates that. I have to wonder if you actually knew what you were writing was false or if you had to go look it up after I disproved your assertion.

If you had to look it up, the I am proud of you for doing a bit of investigation, and what you should learn from it is that you make statements out of ignorance that are demonstrably false. It shows you need to study up before making pronouncements that condemn others.

If you did know what is discussed in the article but didn’t bother to express yourself with precision in your rush to condemn Walton, shame on you.

 

I have nevr condemned others, but would say that unless one holds to a fully inspired Bible, with the lieral/historical Grammerical view, all sorts of problematic theology come creep in!
And evolution has really zilch scientific support when the facts are understood in the correct way!

 

And how do you know he does hold to a "fully inspired Bible" and does not use the "literal/historical grammatical" view as his primary method of interpretation? You actually don't know that for yourself because you haven't read his work.

However, I hold to both of those viewpoints and I do not believe, primarily on the basis of scripture, that a literal, six-day view of creation is a correct interpretation of those passages.

You have not even dared to explain why evidence from the human genome does not support evolution. I realize that most creationists prefer to talk about geology, dinosaurs, and radiocarbon dating (and I've followed those arguments for years and find them unconvincing), but I haven't heard of a single creationist who will show "the correct way" to interpret evidence in the human genome to come out with a non-evolutionary point-of-view.

Since you love science, maybe you can take a crack at it.

I have had both family members and friends who are biologists, who are both Christians and believers in theistic evolution because the evidence for both the scriptures and evolution is strong. I have talked at length with a close friend who is a biologist and we read "Adam and the Genome" together, with him critiquing the science and me critiquing the theology. He found no flaws in the science and I found few quibbles with the theology presented in the book. In fact, I found Scot McKnight's insight to be incredibly rich -- much richer than any insight I have ever heard from a creationist.

 

God created Adam and Eve as special and unique creations, as being in Image of God, that would not have been done thru an Evolutionary process! A solid majority until Darwin hit help to the same views as i do regarding genesis, were they all wrong? None could really understand until evolution came unto scene? Why didn't God ANYWHERE in the Bible even hint at the view regarding genesis you and the good Dr expouse?

 

On what basis do you make that claim? Are you saying that God COULD NOT use an evolutionary process? Or are you saying God WOULD NOT use an evolutionary process? Why? Please be specific.

Remember the analogy of infant baptism that I have used a few time (and that you have never responded to)? Your argument could be used to argue for infant baptism and against believer's baptism. Majority opinions are not necessarily correct.

Because the Bible simply doesn't deal with the process of creation, only the fact, purpose and Author of creation.

 

Adam and Eve were the very first humans, how doe sevolution make them into image of God by itself? They had NO parents other than God Himself!

 

"By itself?" I don't know of any Christian who claims that evolution made "Adam and Eve" into the image of God "by itself." I could certainly be wrong about that, but that is not a view I have put forward.

Moreover, I have written about God guiding the evolutionary process, and have explicitly stated that the "image of God" moment was a direct act of God in both of the recent threads where we have discussed these issues:

I affirm that humankind (and all loving and non-living things) were created by God with His direct interaction. God also created life in such a way that it unfolds in a certain direction and that He nurtures and interacts with His creation. And at some point, God made humankind in His own image, and that was a special act of creation with elements that were already created.​

[The image of God] was certainly given to us by God in some way that made us distinct from the animals, and I agree, it was a special event, but you cannot jump from that belief and claim that God specially created a singular Adam and singular Eve -- apart from any evolutionary processes -- that allowed for the image of God.​

Are you paying attention at all to what I write? Are you making any effort to understand my point of view instead of just attacking it?

 

What scriptures do you use to support God using the evolutionary process with life here on earth, as all I knw support divine and direct creation!

 

Again, I have to point out that you apparently are not paying attention. I have claimed that the scriptures do not deal with the process of origins at all, so there won't be any scripture to support any process, much less evolution. For example, just in this thread, I have written:

The Bible doesn’t deal with evolution. It was not intended to address that question.

Because the Bible simply doesn't deal with the process of creation, only the fact, purpose and Author of creation. (This is from less than four hours ago!)​

Don't you see the error of demanding that I show you scriptures to prove what I claim the scriptures do not address?

And regarding your claim that all of the scriptures you know support "divine and direct creation," let's look at your claim:

You affirm 'divine creation.' So do I. We just disagree on the process.

You have chosen an interpretation that can be drawn from a casual reading of Genesis with all kinds of extra-biblical arguments drawn from six, 24-hour day creation advocates. In fast, most of your arguments have been straight out of the literature or even links to certain creationist sites.

I have come to an interpretation drawn from very carefully study of Genesis (both in Hebrew and the English translations) and the way the rest of the scripture relates to those passage. I came to my conclusions about the creation narratives before I seriously considered what science has to say. I won't go into much detail, but I have looked at geological evidence, hands on and in reference materials, that is strong evidence of a very old earth. Astronomy also points to an ancient universe -- I have discussed these issues with a friend who is an astrophysicist. She is a Christian and has no doubt that the universe is quite old from the data and observation she has worked with. But I always held that God could have created everything at an "apparent age," although the idea of God putting evidence out there to point humankind in the wrong direction was troubling -- especially when the scriptures claim that the heavens declare the glory of God. Then I came across the evidence in the human genome, and it is quite conclusive to me. There is no conflict with the scriptures and it does not rely on the perceived weak link of geology which is allegedly a commitment to uniformitarianism.

You affirm 'direct creation.' So do I. We just disagree on how God directly acted.

You interpret direct creation as God putting everything together in a way that can be drawn from a casual reading of Genesis with all kinds of extra-biblical arguments drawn from six, 24-hour day creation advocates.

I simply affirm that God is directly involved in His creation and that He has created all things that unfold in a certain way, and has nurtured and acted upon His creation through all ages of its existence. And most specifically, when God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...", He created humankind (probably from pre-existing hominids) as a population of male and female ("...male and female He created them...") that bore the image of God. And we have evidence directly from the scriptures that there were more humans upon the earth than just the archetypal Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel family, since Cain was worried about other humans killing him (Genesis 4:14).

So we both affirm divine and direct creation. Let's have no more of that accusation thrown my way.

 

Which underdatnding would be the normal way to look at this before evolution hit though? i can find mine directly in inspired scriptures, while yours seems to be drawn over from extra biblical assumed to be true, non inspred sources!

 

Before I answer your question, I first want to point out a few things about your question and your two assertions…

Your question:

You are not actually asked about what the scripture says (or doesn’t say), but pointing to what you believe is a historic tradition of interpreting the creation narratives your way. The unstated implication of your question is that the historical tradition of this interpretation bears so much authority that evolutionary science should be suspect since Christians of ages past did not necessarily believe in evolutionary science. Therefore, there is something wrong with them, or there is something wrong with me.

I don’t think I am misjudging the implicit argument of your question since you keep using this argument, previously citing such people as Augustine, Luther and Calvin, suggesting that it is arrogant of me to think that I know better than them. Of course the ridiculous nature of that assertion is we all know a lot more about disease, electricity, outer space, and geology than Augustine, Luther and Calvin, and we should be wrong to go against them.

I will come back to this in my response to your question.

So, in short, you are making an argument from tradition while pretending that tradition is consistent and superior to science.

Let’s look at your follow-up assertions:

You claim that the scripture is your sole resource while mine needs the addition of other sources. There are a number of issues here.

(1) You do not interpret scripture in an intellectual, ideological vacuum. You have been molded by traditions (which you have repeatedly called upon for your arguments), by persons and groups dedicated to “creationism” (which you have repeatedly cited with your links), and by your culture, a post-Enlightenment, hyper-literal, fundamental, American worldview.

(2) Previously, you have claimed that science does not support evolution “when the facts are understood in the correct way.” So you make appeals to the scientific method as a legitimate way of determining truth.

(3) You pretend that there is something wrong with me making appeals to “sources” (aka science and literature contemporary to the Genesis narratives) that I believe to be “true.” Let’s be clear that I believe the literature contemporary to the Genesis narratives to be “true” in the sense that they are genuine and can offer some insights into the literary structure and ideas that were floating around the ancient Middle East – I certainly do not take them to be factually, historically true. I also believe (like you) that the scientific method is a legitimate way to discover truth.

Let’s get back to your question:

Since you have previously appealed to Augustine, Luther and Calvin, let’s see what they have to say about scripture and science:

Augustine DID NOT believe the “days” of Genesis 1 were actually 24-hour days. He wrote:

When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.​

So you disagree with Augustine on the issue of creation taking place in six, 24-hour days.

What do you think Luther would say if someone told the theory of Copernicus that claimed the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way around? Since Luther and Copernicus were contemporaries, we actually know what he thought about it:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."​

Elsewhere, Luther refers to Copernicus as "a fool who went against Holy Writ."

So do you agree with Luther or Copernicus? If Copernicus, why are you choosing science over Luther’s scripturally-based views?

Let’s check in with Calvin regarding his view regarding whether the earth orbits the sun, or the sun orbits the earth:

“A simple survey of the world should of itself suffice to attest a Divine Providence. The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle אף, aph, denoting emphasis, is introduced — Yea, he hath established it.” -- John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms: Volume IV, Ps 93:1​

So do you agree with Calvin or Copernicus? If Copernicus, why are you choosing science over Calvin’s scripturally-based views?

I know you are out of step with Augustine, and I am confident you don’t agree with Luther or Calvin that the earth is stationary and the sun orbits the earth. You are happy to interpret scripture differently from Luther and Calvin when science brings additional revelation.

Now I doubt you knew these things about Augustine, Luther, and Calvin before making an appeal to their views, but now that you know them, you realize that you are also out-of-step with them as well.

And going back to that great analogy of infant baptism, all three of these figures would condemn us.

So you and I both look at scripture as our prime authority, and then accept science as an additional witness of God’s truth, since all truth is God’s truth.

So let’s have no more of these appeals to tradition.

 

Jesus and paul held as I do concerning this issue, so I stand with and them!

 

Making grandiose claims is not an argument.

You have not demonstrated that "Jesus and Paul" held as you do (isn't it interesting that you are calling Jesus and Paul to your side instead of submitting to them), nor have you been able to handle scripture accurately and respectfully.

I realize that you have placed great faith in six, 24-hour day creationism and probably can't separate it from your faith in Christ. But you need to realize that they are two very different things (or they should be). I also imagine that you are in fellowship with a group of people who holds to the same position as you and if they knew you were considering another view, you would face great social, and perhaps religious, difficulty.

I will stop pressing you on this issue since I have made all of the points I want to make. You need to decide what you have enough faith to do. Do you have enough faith to trust Jesus as your Lord and Teacher, as well as consider that what you have taught and believed may not be exactly right? I hope so. If you embrace and act upon truth, it can free you up. If you reject truth, even though you have a sneaking suspicion it might be right, you set yourself up for self-delusion and a more difficult fall later.

Will you now have enough humility and grace not to criticize and attack persons who understand the Genesis creation narratives differently than you?

 

I have seen no evidence to support Theistic Evolution, and do see that some who hold to that, and do not see a literal historical aspect in genesis are trying to fit and acomodate evolutionary theory into scriptures.
http://garynorth.com/YoungDays.pdf
http://garynorth.com/YoungDays2.pdf