What did change your mind?

No one here doubts that scripture is true. What's in dispute is whether Genesis was literal narrative or allegory. An allegorical understanding of Genesis does not negate that Genesis is true.

 

Nor does accepting a literal translation of Genesis violate Genesis. Nor does accepting a supernatural Creator violate reason nor make God a liar because of man's interpretations of what he sees.

Let me try again: Let's say that someone convinces you that all furniture comes from a furniture factory because there is nothing about a chair that proves it does not and because a furniture factory can explain the existence of chairs convincingly. Let's say that these same people believe this partly because they don't believe one individual could create a chair by themselves.

You come to my home and see a chair. You assume a long process from tree farm, to logging, to woodmill, to furniture factory, to store, to delivery truck, to my home... but then I tell you that I made the chair myself. Does that make me a liar because you wrongly assumed as true someone else's explaination for the existence of chairs who was not there when I made the chair?

John, You can never.... never! validate the claim that because someone believes that the evidence in nature points to an unproven theory, God is a liar if their opinion is wrong.

Please cite scripture that says this is the purpose or that Genesis is to be taken as allegorical. Please show that Christ or any of the NT writers considered it anything other than the actual events. Please explain why, if evolution is true, God was not being deceptive when He said that He formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life so he became a living being- For this last one, please consider that the man who gave us this account was Moses... who spent considerable time with God and to whom God directly spoke.

The Bible does not make a declaration that contradicts these facts. Regardless, evolution is not a provable truth... you have already acknowledged that. All of the things you mentioned have been proven.

It does absent a valid biblical reason to do so.

This is not a matter of removing preconceived notions but of swapping biblical preconceptions with a human philosophical viewpoint. Evolution is based on assumptions and a modernistic philosophical mindset.

The assumptions may or may not be true. The mindset while true in many respects does not equal truth.

 

Meatros/everyone else

Please re-read my post. I’m not “claiming” the Bible is true, God through the Bible is saying His word is true.

As Johnv points out, “no one here doubts that scripture is true.” Where we disagree is on the interpretation. I don’t hold this against anyone, even though it may seem as though I do, I truly don’t. We all see things differently and have different opinions, as long as we all agree on John 3:16, then we’re all brothers in Christ and will spend eternity together in His glorious Kingdom!

I have been in prayer over this topic for sometime now and I’ve learned a lot from everyone here. And yes, I’ve read each topic and tried to follow along the best I could, but again my faith rests firmly on the Book of Genesis. I feel I’ve learned enough from both sides that my faith is even stronger than before. In addition, I feel the Lord is guiding me back to His Word and to spend more time reading and studying His Word and how I can apply it to my life, which will enable me to become a better disciple of Christ, a better husband and father.

[ June 27, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]

 

Nor does accepting a literal translation of Genesis violate Genesis.
Agreed. Accepting a literal tralslation of Genesis does not violate Genesis, either. I never said it did. I'm simply saying that a non literal interpretation doesn't violate Genesis.

Nor does accepting a supernatural Creator violate reason nor make God a liar because of man's interpretations of what he sees.
Believing in OEC does not violate reason, nor does it make God a liar.

Let me try again:
Okay, now you're starting to sound like Captain Kirk playing Fizzbin.

John, You can never.... never! validate the claim that because someone believes that the evidence in nature points to an unproven theory, God is a liar if their opinion is wrong.
Nope, I never said that. What I said that the evidence in nature points to a theory that does not violate an allegorical Genesis.

Please cite scripture that says this is the purpose or that Genesis is to be taken as allegorical. Please show that Christ or any of the NT writers considered it anything other than the actual events.
There are several places in the Bible that are clearly allegorical. Jesus' parables are good examples of non-factual narratives that are still truth. There's nothing in the NT that says

Please explain why, if evolution is true, God was not being deceptive when He said that He formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life so he became a living being-
Actually, it's "man became a living soul". This is the explanation of God being created in the "image and likeness" of God. It was not until man was given a soul that he was such. This description was not intended to be a literal explanation of how man was physically created.

...please consider that the man who gave us this account was Moses... who spent considerable time with God and to whom God directly spoke.
We don't know for certain who wrote Genesis. We know that stories similar to Gen2 and 2 existed prior to Genesis being penned. We also know that the creation stories in question (Gen1 and Gen2 are two separate creation stories) were popular among the Israelites prior to them being written down in Genesis. Also, Gen1 and Gen2 were penned by two different people. If you look at the Hebrew writing style, they're dramatically different. Additionally, Genesis was the last of the Pentateuch written. MY view is that Moses oversaw the writing of the pentateuch, but he did not necessarily write them himself. Considering that the Pentateuch talks about Moses' death, this is a likely scenario.

The Bible does not make a declaration that contradicts these facts.
Genesis1 describes a literal flat earth. The Hebrews believed in a flat earth. The Bible also talk abotu thise who sit upon the circle (disc) of the earth. As far as geocentricity, the sun being made to stand still, and the the sun moving across the sky are common appearances. The Hebrews did not consider the sun to be anything more than a great light. They did not think of it as being the center of the solar system.

Regardless, evolution is not a provable truth... you have already acknowledged that.
Neither is a literal 6 day creation. What we have is evidence, which fits an evolutionary model.

All of the things you mentioned have been proven.
Actually, we have yet to prove that the sun rotates around the galaxy, or that the galaxy roatates around the universe. All observation and evidence fit these models, but they have not yet been proven.

This is not a matter of removing preconceived notions but of swapping biblical preconceptions with a human philosophical viewpoint.
A Biblical preconception is a preconception nonetheless. Such a mentality nearly got Galileo killed, and forced Columbus to leave Italy. OTOH, a nonliteral understanding of Genesis makes no preconceptions at all.

Evolution is based on assumptions and a modernistic philosophical mindset.
Evolution is by no means a new idea, and has been around for thusands of years. It was a hotly debated topic amongst the ancient Greeks. The ancient Greeks were hardly "modernist" by today's standards.

 

I'm glad to hear it, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

JohnV:

WHAT idiot would hang around with a T-Rex? Also
we have not looked at all the fossils. Also,
you have not been shown where fossils are
found out of sequence. It happens very often.
The explanation is to promote EVOLUTION and
not logic (creation or otherwise).

As far a Biblical truth---TRUTH is NEVER proven
by FICTION. Evolutionists date the strata by
the fossiles they find and date the fossils they
find by the strata in which it is found (how
convenient for them). The devil really has you
snuckered. I can see the evolutionists praying
before they come to their conclusions and treach
their classes (N O T!!!!)

 

JohnV:

WHAT idiot would hang around with a T-Rex? Also
we have not looked at all the fossils. Also,
you have not been shown where fossils are
found out of sequence. It happens very often.
The explanation is to promote EVOLUTION and
not logic (creation or otherwise).

As far a Biblical truth---TRUTH is NEVER proven
by FICTION. Evolutionists date the strata by
the fossiles they find and date the fossils they
find by the strata in which it is found (how
convenient for them). The devil really has you
snuckered. I can see the evolutionists praying
before they come to their conclusions and treach
their classes (N O T!!!!)

 

Yes you did. You said that if Genesis was literal then God was a liar for leaving evidence to make some people think evolution was true.

I didn't say that it did.

But you did. You said that if the world is young then God is a liar.

But these passages are demonstrated as such by their context and are not treated elsewhere as literal events.

John, This interpretation does not come from context nor from cross-reference. You are accepting something extrabiblical as the standard by which you will interpret the Bible.

In Luke 24:44, Jesus attributed it to Moses.

Thus adding significant weight to its ancient source and acceptance as a literal account.

This is absolutely unproven and should never be stated matter of factly. The same logic that used for this conjecture could be used to prove that a cover letter written by you and a technical standard procedure written by you were actually written by two different people. It neglects the fact that writers are able to employ different styles and diction based on the purpose of their writings.

So are the business letters I write at work and the directions to our home that I write to friends.

This would not add weight to any of your contentions.

I just re-read Genesis 1. Which verse says that the earth was flat?

What you listed are matters of comparing apples to oranges in great extreme. We used figures of speech intermittantly in literal conversations frequently. It is practically a rule of order for posters on the BB. This in itself doesn't make what we are saying non-literal. And, what you post, does not point to an allegorical understanding of Genesis in by any stretch.

I agree (a provable fact outside the acceptance of a literal Genesis) since none of us were there.

I disagree with both implications: that the evidence does not fit YEC and that it does fit evolution.

At no point have I denied this.

This is a false statement. You have yet to show any reason for an allegorical understanding of Genesis other than your preconceived notion that evolution is true. It also indicates a set of modernistic preconceptions about what constitutes "truth".

If I am not mistaken those that speculated on an evolution like model for creation also held a philosophy similar in the pertinent respects to modernism. In particular, a rejection of any reality outside the materialistic realm.

 

WHAT idiot would hang around with a T-Rex?
So, if don'thang around you, my remains will carbon date differently than yours?

Also we have not looked at all the fossils.
Show me fossils where jurassic, triassic, or cretaceuos animals appear in the same era as any homonid.

Also, you have not been shown where fossils are found out of sequence. It happens very often.
I'm not even discussing sequence appearance. I'm looking for a basig thing: homonids appearing ANYWHERE with jurassic, triassic, or cretaceous animals.

The explanation is to promote EVOLUTION and
not logic (creation or otherwise).
Not at all. The explanation is to explain what the evidence suggests.

As far a Biblical truth---TRUTH is NEVER proven
by FICTION.
You're confusing truth with fact. Biblical truth, and facts about fossil evidence, are not contradictory.

Evolutionists date the strata by the fossiles they find and date the fossils they find by the strata in which it is found (how convenient for them).
You've been watching too much TBN. But putting your rhetorical babble aside, let's assume that the only dating method we use is radiocarbon dating. Now, if we take ALL the know homonids and ALL the known dinosaurs, NONE of the dinosaurs will date to the same period as homonids. EVEN IF radiocarbon dates are incorrectly long, SOME of these fossils should date to the same period of each other IF they indeed existed on the earth at roughly the ssame time (6000 years ago). But they don't And they're not separated by a few hundred years, they're separated by millions of years.

The devil really has you snuckered. I can see the evolutionists praying before they come to their conclusions and treach their classes (N O T!!!!)
It is indeed unfortunate that this subject is so divisive amongst Christians. Indeed, the Devil must be loving it whenever someone like you chooses to grandstand rather than discuss the topic, evidence, or specific points. So far, you have yet to provide any evidence that supports a 6 day creation, or refutes my simple assertion that homonids do not appear in the same period of time as jurassic, triassic, and cretaceous animals.

 

Radiocarbon dating isn't even proposed to be accurate past 40,000 years. It cannot be used to date anything millions of years old.

Radio isotope dating only works on non-organic specimens. It is said to date the rock around the fossil but not the fossil itself. Even so, this dating method is likewise based on unproven, unobserved assumptions.

In spite of the spirit, the poster you responded to is correct about the geologic column. It is an assumed generalization with no real means of being (dis)proven. It is therefore unscientific. Any dating made using the model is based on assumptions and to a great degree circular reasoning.

I agree regardless of who is right or who the grandstander is. I believe what I believe with convictions based on the Bible as well as explainations from creationists. My interpretations are not infallible nor are the opinions of anyone who looks at the evidences in natural science.

 

You said that if Genesis was literal then God was a liar for leaving evidence to make some people think evolution was true.
Let me clarify. If the earth waws created in 6 days, and God changed the evidence to appear that it was created in millions of years, then yes, God lied. But that's not what God did. It appears He created the earth over long periods of time, and left evidence that supports that.

You said that if the world is young then God is a liar.
Hopefully my previous clarification clears that up.

But these passages are demonstrated as such by their context and are not treated elsewhere as literal events.
Actually, there have been a few threads on the board asserting that the parables had to be real events. I believe we can agree to disagree on that subject, though.

This interpretation does not come from context nor from cross-reference. You are accepting something extrabiblical as the standard by which you will interpret the Bible.
Being in the image and likeness of God has nothing to do with our physical form. Our physical forms are far from perfect. O don't think that's extrabiblical.

In Luke 24:44, Jesus attributed it to Moses.
Jesus refers to the "Law of Moses", which is in the Pentateuch. But it does not assert authorship.

Thus adding significant weight to its ancient source and acceptance as a literal account.
I think it adds weight to its nonliteral accountability. ut again, we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

This (Gen1 and Gen2 authorship) is absolutely unproven and should never be stated matter of factly. The same logic that used for this conjecture could be used to prove that a cover letter written by you and a technical standard procedure written by you were actually written by two different people....
There's no doctrinal requirement to assume that Gen 1 and Gen 2 were written by the same person, be it Moses or another person, so long as we understand that Genesis was divinely inspired. The authorship of Genesis was a topic of much discussion when I was in Bible college (and a Baptist one at that).

Which verse says that the earth was flat?
Take a good look at the description that Genesis 1 gives. It describes a flat earth. Additionally, the idea that the Israelites believed in a flat earth is a matter of historical reality.

What you listed are matters of comparing apples to oranges in great extreme. We used figures of speech intermittantly in literal conversations frequently.
Allegorical narrative was a common tool in biblical times. Genesis is, imo, allegorical narrative.

I disagree with both implications: that the evidence does not fit YEC and that it does fit evolution.
I can only speak for me. I've intently studied both, rather intently. The body of evidence does not support a literal 6 day creation. If evidence is found that would support it, I'd be all ears.

You have yet to show any reason for an allegorical understanding of Genesis other than your preconceived notion that evolution is true. It also indicates a set of modernistic preconceptions about what constitutes "truth".
Truth and fact are by no means synonymous. If tat were so, any places in the Bible where there are factual discrepancies would negate biblical truth. For example, the Gospels placing the crucifixion on sifferent days, or the inscription over the cross being different.

If I am not mistaken those that speculated on an evolution like model for creation also held a philosophy similar in the pertinent respects to modernism.
Not at all. The Greeks did have their own creation mythology, but, like several of the god and goddess legends, it was not taken literally by everyone. However, some in the philosophy field disagreed with Greek science on a number of occaisions, such as Aristotle. He felt that the creation myth (that the earth arose from an egg laid by Nyx, a bird) was literal, and that tales like Pandora's box were also literal. Hence, any scientific findings that contradicted mythology could not be real.

 

LOL, I think my parents were wondering the same thing by the time I finally got a job!

My dad and my sister have degrees in biology, and I went all the way through high school with the intention of becoming a biologist. However, I ended up getting a Bachelor's degree in physical geography and cartography. I also have a Master's degree in climatology. I have completed Ph.D. work in biogeography and M.S. work in artificial intelligence, but declined to write the respective theses (i.e. I was lured away to industry by the $ when I was younger and poorer.). For the last fifteen years I have worked in systems level programming and artificial intelligence, mostly in new product R&D. I maintain an active interest in ecology and the use of biological paradigms in engineering (e.g. genetic algorithms). My main pure programming interest right now is in using generic and generative programming to create resuable software components.

My view of the depiction of origins in Genesis is that it is science. However, it’s not our science, it’s the scientific view that was being taught in the big universities of ancient Near East (i.e. Hammurabi Polytech). What the writer of Genesis was doing was taking that science and putting forth a view of how God operated behind the science. It’s similar in this respect to what Kenneth Miller does in his book “Finding Darwin’s God.” The real importance of Genesis and Exodus aren’t the science and archaeology, it’s the approach they show us to life – “when you come to write the stories of your life and civilization, give the central role to God.”

Another NT anology might be of the scientist who comes to Jesus and asks: "Lord, I’m an evolutionary paleontologist; what should I Do?"

In the Spirit of Christ, one might well imagine the answer: "Be diligent and honest with your research. Do not take data or research results from anyone without attribution (especially not a grad student), and be content with your results even when they disprove your hypotheses."

These are the things non-Christian colleagues will notice and respect.

-Neil

p.s. [In edit] And I forgot to mention that when I first started college, I wanted to major in art! And you know what?, someday I'd still like to go back to school and study art history and sculpture.

[ June 27, 2003, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: NeilUnreal ]

 

I still fail to see why you can say God lied. God did not say "The earth is old" and then create it young. Was Adam full grown when created? Your conclusion seems absolutely unwarranted and strained at best to try to call God a liar if He created a young earth. Besides, all the 'evidence' does NOT point to an old earth. Quite the opposite many times.

Also, what about if evolution is true? You ignored that in my last post. God is definitely a liar if evolution is true because there had to be death and struggle before the fall. I find that to be far more blatant and outright than trying to accuse Him of lying if He created a young earth.

God Bless,
Neal

 

Huh??????

In Christ,
Neal

 

Not really. You are still either missing or evading the point. God created the evidence exactly as we find it. He did not change it to appear like anything different than what it does.

The problem isn't the evidence. The problem is the human interpretation of the evidence. On a one on one basis, the explainations provided by thoughtful, educated creationists appear just as credible and consistent with the evidence as what evolutionists say. Many would ignore a significant problem that 'real' scientists working from a creationist position face compared to evolutionists. Evolution is secular dogma. People accepting its paradigm receive all the secular academic money. Institutionally, it is accepted as "fact" even though scientifically it is not fact. Anyone who rejects evolution is believed to reject fact... and anyone who is so unreasonable is certainly not getting funds for research in a related field.

I think creationists do remarkably well considering their financial handicap.

The point isn't what the Israelites believed or didn't believe. The science has overturned much of the scientific "fact" presented at the Scopes trial including the centerpiece "Nebraska man". Does this fact catagorically discredit evolution?

I have read Genesis 1 and you must be reading into the text to derive a "flat earth" because it simply does not say it.

If I am not mistaken those that speculated on an evolution like model for creation also held a philosophy similar in the pertinent respects to modernism.
Not at all. The Greeks did have their own creation mythology, but, like several of the god and goddess legends, it was not taken literally by everyone. However, some in the philosophy field disagreed with Greek science on a number of occaisions, such as Aristotle. He felt that the creation myth (that the earth arose from an egg laid by Nyx, a bird) was literal, and that tales like Pandora's box were also literal. Hence, any scientific findings that contradicted mythology could not be real. [/QB][/QUOTE] The Epicureans I think took a position somewhat parallel to modernists... in particular theistic evolutionists. They held that everything could be explained scientifically and "the gods" were uninvolved.

 

You are still either missing or evading the point. God created the evidence exactly as we find it. He did not change it to appear like anything different than what it does.
I agree. God created the evidence exactly as we find it. And that evidence supports an OEC.

The problem isn't the evidence. The problem is the human interpretation of the evidence.
How does one interpret the fact (and I do mean fact) that homonid fossils do not appear anywhere in the timeline of jurassic, triassic, or cretaceous animals?

On a one on one basis, the explainations provided by thoughtful, educated creationists appear just as credible and consistent with the evidence as what evolutionists say.
I have yet to hear a credible creationist arguement for the scenario I described above.

Evolution is secular dogma.
Not at all. Evolution is a generic term to describe the process that appears in several theoretical models deveoped from the evidence. If it were "dogma" the models would not change in light of new evidence.

People accepting its paradigm receive all the secular academic money.
There are a lot paycheck-to-paycheck people in the field who would disagree with you.

Institutionally, it is accepted as "fact" even though scientifically it is not fact.
Institutionally, it is accepted as a theory that is supported by evidence.

Anyone who rejects evolution is believed to reject fact...
Anyone who rejects evolution rejects the evidence for it.

I think creationists do remarkably well considering their financial handicap.
Yes, they do remarkably well, despite the lack of evidence for their claims.

The science has overturned much of the scientific "fact" presented at the Scopes trial including the centerpiece "Nebraska man". Does this fact catagorically discredit evolution?
Nebraska Man was named in 1922 from a humanlike tooth which had been found in Nebraska. Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, had found the tooth in 1917, and in 1922 he sent it to Henry Fairfield Osborn, a paleontologist and the president of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn identified it as an ape, and quickly published a paper identifying it as a new species, which he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. Most other scientists were skeptical even of the modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. Further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs.

I have read Genesis 1 and you must be reading into the text to derive a "flat earth" because it simply does not say it.
Click Here to view a diagram of the earth as understood by the Hebrews and Babylonians.

The Epicureans I think took a position somewhat parallel to modernists... in particular theistic evolutionists. They held that everything could be explained scientifically and "the gods" were uninvolved.
Most progressive people were Stoics, not Epicureans. Epicurean views were a bit extreme for the superstitious and polytheistic Greeks. Stoics in general, held to traditional, but more non-literal, philosophical beliefs regarding God/gods, and were generally not adverse to what we would call evolution.

 

Was Adam full grown when created?
The story doesn't say how old Adam was when he was created. What it does say is, that after Adam was created, God gave Him a soul. Thus, by God giving Him a soul, he became in the "image and likeness" of God.

...all the 'evidence' does NOT point to an old earth. Quite the opposite many times.
Well, if that's the case, please start a new forum to discuss specific young earth evidence.

God is definitely a liar if evolution is true because there had to be death and struggle before the fall.
If you take the story literally, then that presents a problem. If there was no death and struggle before the fall, then what about carnivours? If there were carnivours prior to the fall of man, then the carnivours evolved into such after the fall, since carnivours today are not equipped to eat vegetation.

 

Johnv:

(I'm guessing that you meant for the NO to be in your quote!?)

 

No. That is one interpretation of the evidence that lies within the realm of what God might have done. BTW, you said OEC. Is that your position or theistic evolution?

If we were turning up clearly human fossils like arrowheads in a burial mound then your question might have more merit.

But before I would undertake where fossils do or do not appear, we would have to deal with the "timeline". As stated before, my major problem with any form of evolution is the circular reasoning used for dating and historical classification. There is another thread here that is dealing with that now.

We would also have to discuss what constitutes the science and art of interpretting/classifying/interpolating fossil remains. If "reconstructions" were always accurate then we would be talking about science but as you know discovery of new evidence has overturned many of these speculations.

ICR gives one.

I would also submit that, assuming a literal interpretation of Genesis, the pre-flood human population was relatively small with most human evidence being created in local disasters in the years following the flood.

I know you are not that naive John. Evolution is a dogma that establishes what is acceptable "scientific" thought and what is not. Certain rules such as, and maybe especially, the range of acceptable ages for the earth are not negotiable.

Depends on the dogma and what it is meant to preserve. Even dogmas have latitude within them.

For instance, evolution is said to be ambivalent toward God or religion... but that only last until you try to use God to explain or limit explanations of something in the natural world.

They would disagree that they get academic money and creationists don't? If so, they would argue incorrectly.

Nope. Anyone who rejects evolution looks at the evidence and determines that it means something else. If it were as you say then evolution could rightly be called "fact" as no other explaination would be valid.

Again, what they believed is not the issue. What the text says is. You said that Genesis 1 says the earth is flat then cite interpretations of nature as the proof.

 

I think he meant what he said although the meaning is actually the same in its key point either way. He was asking what carnivores would have eaten before the fall. Carnivores do not have a digestive system that is capable of getting the necessary nutrients from plants. (It is not just the digestive system either. For instance, they do not have the teeth, either. Their bodies are meant for hunting. Their claws are useful for killing. And so on...) They must have meat. So either the carnivores had to have had a vastly different digestive system (and entire body plan) before the fall to be able to process plant material properly and then evolved the ability to eat meat in a very short time after the flood. Or the carnivores did not exist (if the "no" was supposed to be there) in the original creation and they evolved from some other animals after the flood. This is variation within "kinds?" I still haven't seen the fossil lion or t rex with teeth for masticating plants.