Creation questions

[Artimaeus]

Miracles are scientifically impossible. Both sides agree. One says He did it (creation) miraculously and the other says He did it (or could have done it or at leat part of it) scientifically. I love science. I greatly admire the disciplines of physics, biology, chemistry, and medicine. they have brought wonderful benefits and should continue to do so. My concern is for those who propose that since science has discovered (the rest of us already knew) that miracles are scientifically impossible, therefore, they did not, could not, or even most likely did not happen is just patently absurd.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Is that a miracle or is it masterful science that we will sooner or later discover the principles behind and would then be able to replicate given the resources.

 

[Charles Meadows]

My concern is for those who propose that since science has discovered (the rest of us already knew) that miracles are scientifically impossible, therefore, they did not, could not, or even most likely did not happen is just patently absurd.

I don't think that this is really what science advocates would say.

Consider the NT examples of Jesus' healing the sick - or even raising from the dead.

Both would be scientifically impossible and both ARE DOUBTED by many liberals because of this.

But the NT is clearly saying in no uncertain terms that this IS what happened, namely that God Himself decided to break the rules of natural law.

What many of us "old earthers" suggest is NOT that a literal Genesis 1-11 is to be rejected due to implausibility (and therefore limiting God) but rather that the literal interpretation WAS NOT INTENDED BY MOSES HIMSELF. The western mindset wants to see every account as a simple narrative - but I think that a middle eastern mindset can more easily appreciate that a story can be true but yet not be literally factually depictive of actual events.

I believe the earth is old - NOT because I don't think God is capable of doing the "scientifically impossible" - but because I think that the western Christian mind (albeit in an attempt to show reverence to the word of God) has missed the point of the account and has placed a premium value on a literal reading that was never originally intended.

 

[Liz Ward]

And how do you reconcile that with Moses' teaching on the reason for the Sabbath?

Liz

 

[just-want-peace]

What many of us "old earthers" suggest is NOT that a literal Genesis 1-11 is to be rejected due to implausibility (and therefore limiting God) but rather that the literal interpretation WAS NOT INTENDED BY MOSES HIMSELF.

WOW!!! This statement certainly clarifies your position on this topic!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Our God has blessed us with the stewardship of many things, including a brain to think with

. Some of us believe in being good stewards

, and some others . . . well, their posts make it very clear what they believe .

 

[Charles Meadows]

JWP,

How is it not clear?

When I was first saved I decided to abandon my evolutionist beliefs (I was in med school, having completed a BA in biology with nearly enough extra credit hours for a masters).

When I read the theories of many of the creationists I was just left feeling unsatisfied. It seemed like they were either not knowledgeable about science or they were just willing to give ANY explanation (no matter how far-fetched) as long as it was anti-evolution. I agonized over this quite significantly, wanting to believe what it seemed the bible was saying but yet wondering why God would allow the earth to LOOK OLD if it were not so.

I undertook study of Hebrew and Arabic grammar and literature - and this opened alot of doors. I read a number of creation myths and epics from about the same time period as biblical Israel.

What the LIBERAL SCHOLARS WILL SAY is that pretty much ALL of the OT is nonfactual, belonging to the realm of folklore. They say this based on the similarity of the type of writing in the bible to that of other near eastern civilizations and based on the fact that ancient near easterners had a penchant for story-telling as a way to say things.

I REJECT the notion that any of the Bible is WRONG or ERRANT. But given what we do know about science, and what we do know about the way ancient near easterners wrote - is it perhaps WE who are errant in suggesting that Genesis was intended to be 100% literal. In truth Moses and his followers probably had no idea about scientific thinking and no reason to wonder exactly in what sequence things were physically created. They knew God DID create everything - and that was the important part. Genesis as such could be seen as a defense of GOD's creatorship over and above all the other near eastern "gods". The language is the language of religious epic because that was what all the people were familiar with.

Just some thoughts. Seems pretty clear. But let me be clear on this - old earthers (at least the ones here) do NOT DOUBT GOD - but I think you could say we doubt that men (Christians) have always gotten it right in terms of deciding what the Bible does and does not say.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
The western mindset wants to see every account as a simple narrative - but I think that a middle eastern mindset can more easily appreciate that a story can be true but yet not be literally factually depictive of actual events.

The mindset is thoroughly western, beginning with Darwinism and proceeding from that point onward. Why would you want to pin this on the mid-eastern people? I have lived in the mid-east. Both Muslim and Christian like believe in YEC. OEC is a western civilization or a liberal mind concept that reigns in the minds of those who tend to reject the Bible. It is sad to see Christians so gullible to accept the world's philosophy (no science) on the origin of the universe. Origins have nothing to do with science. They have everything to do with religion. It takes as much faith to believe in the big bang (if not more) as it does in the God of creation.
DHK

 

[Charles Meadows]

I have lived in the mid-east. Both Muslim and Christian like believe in YEC. OEC is a western civilization or a liberal mind concept that reigns in the minds of those who tend to reject the Bible.

Of course the ancient Israelites were "young earth". They were not scientific thinkers. That's the whole point. They would not likely have written an account intended to be factual on a scientific level. Ancient civilizations pretty much ALL had magical or epic-type stories for how creation occurred. Why should Moses NOT have framed the creation account in contemporary language?

AND they did not have lots of physical evidence suggesting an old earth.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:


Of course the ancient Israelites were "young earth". They were not scientific thinkers. That's the whole point. They would not likely have written an account intended to be factual on a scientific level. Ancient civilizations pretty much ALL had magical or epic-type stories for how creation occurred. Why should Moses NOT have framed the creation account in contemporary language?

AND they did not have lots of physical evidence suggesting an old earth.

You prove my point well. Other ancient civilizations do have epics and other accounts of creation--most of them pointing to something of a relatively young age compared to what evolutionists of today suggest. They also give narratives in their accounts, not mysterious allegories that have to be strangely interpreted by today's "scientists" to get out of, what they want to read into, instead of just taking it as it is written--like other epics. Your point actually proves that the Creation account is written in a historical way just as other epics are.
DHK

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Liz Ward:
And how do you reconcile that with Moses' teaching on the reason for the Sabbath?

Liz

Moses would have us to believe that we can be righteous in the sight of God by obeying the laws that he wrote down. It is my personal opinion that Moses missed the ball a few times.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liz Ward:
And how do you reconcile that with Moses' teaching on the reason for the Sabbath?

Liz

Moses would have us to believe that we can be righteous in the sight of God by obeying the laws that he wrote down. It is my personal opinion that Moses missed the ball a few times.

</font>[/QUOTE]By saying Moses "missed the ball" is the same as saying God "missed the ball". I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and when I open It and read It, I am face to face with God. You really are pushing the envelope by saying that.

 

[Craigbythesea]

DHK wrote,

They also give narratives in their accounts, not mysterious allegories that have to be strangely interpreted by today's "scientists" to get out of, what they want to read into, instead of just taking it as it is written--like other epics. Your point actually proves that the Creation account is written in a historical way just as other epics are.

The bottom line is that the creationist’s view of Genesis is contrary to the facts that God, by His grace, has allowed Christians to learn. We need to scrap interpretations of the Bible that are contrary to what God has allowed us to learn, and allow God to teach us the truth. An ostrich with his head in the sand is not a good role model for a Christian.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
The bottom line is that the creationist’s view of Genesis is contrary to the facts that God, by His grace, has allowed Christians to learn.

The bottom line is that you are absolutely wrong. Genesis is contrary to the naturalistic interpretations of facts... not the facts themselves. God's creative abilities and intelligence more than account for any supposed discrepancy.

We need to scrap interpretations of the Bible that are contrary to what God has allowed us to learn, and allow God to teach us the truth.

We need to scrap the idea that human intepretations of evidence are of the same authority as eyewitness observation.

An ostrich with his head in the sand is not a good role model for a Christian.

Neither is someone who allows naturalism to dictate how the Word of a supernatural Creator is to be interpretted.

 

[Liz Ward]

How long before you start denying the resurrection, Craig?

And by the way, I am stil, interested to hear the evidence for the creation scientists telliing lies from hell.

Liz

 

[Craigbythesea]

By saying Moses "missed the ball" is the same as saying God "missed the ball". I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and when I open It and read It, I am face to face with God. You really are pushing the envelope by saying that.

We know for a fact that Moses missed the ball when it comes to personal righteousness through the Law!

No where in the Bible does it say that Moses was inerrant or that he always got things right. He was a human being and all human beings make mistakes. We should not assume that Moses got the creation story right just because our first grade Sunday school teacher told us that he did. We should study the data relevant to this issue and trust God to help us to correctly interpret it. Personally, I don’t believe that Moses got the creation story wrong, but that his uninformed readers misevaluated what he wrote. I do know that the earth is old and that Gen. 6-8 is not a literal account of an historic event.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

Neither is someone who allows naturalism to dictate how the Word of a supernatural Creator is to be interpretted.

Everyone in this thread is INTERPRETING Genesis 1-11. Some of us have studied the data relevant to our interpretation, and others have ignored the data and arrived at a ridiculous interpretation that is an insult to the Christian faith and makes Baptists appear to be intellectually challenged Baboons rather than men and women of God.

 

[Scott J]

We should study the data relevant to this issue and trust God to help us to correctly interpret it.

Many of us have... and conclude that a direct creative act by an intelligent creating God is a much better explanation for the design we see in creation than the impossible, unproven, unproveable conjectures of those who allow truth to be limited by the philosophical assumptions of naturalism.

I feel completely comfortable with the word "impossible" by the way for several concrete, objective reasons including the FACT that there is no other possible source for the volume of information that makes creation work than an Intelligence. Random events won't do it no matter how much time you allow.... and if you insert God here then you violate the very rule that you employ to declare that we should not believe the Genesis account in the first place.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Scott J wrote,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Neither is someone who allows naturalism to dictate how the Word of a supernatural Creator is to be interpretted.

Everyone in this thread is INTERPRETING Genesis 1-11. Some of us have studied the data relevant to our interpretation, and others have ignored the data and arrived at a ridiculous interpretation that is an insult to the Christian faith and makes Baptists appear to be intellectually challenged Baboons rather than men and women of God.

</font>[/QUOTE]Right back at it, huh Craig?

Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the data and the scriptures are either ignorant, stupid, or dishonest.

NEVER is having simple faith in what God said an insult to the Christian faith. However, putting the philosophies and declarations of men ahead of what God said is ALWAYS an insult to the Christian faith.

 

[Scott J]

No where in the Bible does it say that Moses was inerrant or that he always got things right.

No where in the Bible does it say that naturalism is the governing philosophy for determining truth on any matter to include creation and science as a whole.

In fact, the most important elements of the Bible and the Christian faith stand in direct contradiction to the philosophy of naturalism... that you accept as TRUTH.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Many of us have... and conclude that a direct creative act by an intelligent creating God is a much better explanation for the design we see in creation than the impossible, unproven, unproveable conjectures of those who allow truth to be limited by the philosophical assumptions of naturalism.

The “design” that you believe that you see may be nothing but conjecture based on a lack of knowledge of the facts. I also believe in design, but that is a personal conviction based upon faith rather than fact.

I feel completely comfortable with the word "impossible" by the way for several concrete, objective reasons including the FACT that there is no other possible source for the volume of information that makes creation work than an Intelligence. Random events won't do it no matter how much time you allow.... and if you insert God here then you violate the very rule that you employ to declare that we should not believe the Genesis account in the first place.

The “Intelligence” that you believe to be responsible for creation is apparently based upon the incorrect notion that scientists believe that creation was merely a series of random events. Natural selection is hardly a random process, and there is no hard evidence that any of the creation process, whether natural or supernatural, was merely a random process.