Do you believe that there has been millions and millions of years?

[Martin Luther]

Sin did not affect animal life, only human-moral life, and brought about the penalty of death.

Animal life is already determined at whatever length that happens to be. Animals don't commit sin!

Martin Luther...What is the word you used,,pangea....I am not familiar with it?

Cheers,

Jim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

 

[Jim1999]

Martin Luther: Thank you. I was familiar with the continental divide, but didn't attach the name to it.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

Ok. if I accept your teaching on this, and agree that when the Bible says a "day" that it doesnt really mean a day....then...

What else is the Bible deceiving us on? If we cant believe the very first chapter, then surely there are other errors in the rest of the book as well.

AJ

Having helped launch the discussion on literal reading of Genesis, but not having wanted to fuel any more fires (besides which I have plenty of ministry things to do rather than sit at the computer and argue), I have stayed out of this thread for some days. But comments -- and this is not the first one -- that suggest that those of us who do not read all of the Bible literally, but see Genesis 1-11 as parable or image or myth or whatever (NOT allegory, as one poster said of my stance), have made me come back in to say that no one other than anti-Christian skeptics thinks that the Bible is deceptive. The Bible is a vehicle which has recorded the actions of a creating, redeeming God. About that I have no question.

But we do live in a world in which scientific habits of thought are prevalent, and which have to be taken into consideration. I am well aware that science is a philosophy as well as a methodology. But I cannot dismiss its conclusions, even if they are sometimes tentative conclusions. I have to take seriously what has been learned, and honesty compels me not to write them off or to twist them to fit my a priori hopes or wants. I have to read truth with BOTH the Biblical and the scientific lenses, and must apply critical faculties to both.

So, critical study leads me (and of course, not me alone, but many scholars, of whom I am hardly one) to read Genesis 1-11 as poetry (maybe that suits us more than parable, myth, image?!). My Philosophy of Religion professor used to put it like this: "We recite a little ditty, 'My love is like a red, red, rose". But we do not mean that the object of our affections has petals and thorns! It's poetry, it's simile or metaphor."

By the way, though it is common to speak about "believing" Genesis 1-11 literally or metaphorically, it seems to me that "thinking" is more appropriate. Belief is about faith and personal trust. What I think about the Bible and its message is prolegomena to belief, but is not its substitute. Therefore I do not subscribe to, among other things, the "house of cards" theory that argues that if one passage of the Bible is shown to be untrue, then it all topples. No, it does not. Truth is truth whatever the surroundings might be. And I never speak of a passage of the Bible as untrue ... only as prescientific and intended to take us to a deeper meaning than how many years we have been around or where the Garden was located, etc.

Rant finished. Back to sermon preparation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The "creation day" recorded a "pattern", but there's no "Record" of "time" to Judge the "CONTEXT" of how long each day represented.

And without a "context", each day could be 24 hours, a year, thousand years, or "anything".

The Hebrew construction used in Gen 1 only means a 24 hour day. It never means anything else. When YOM (day) means more than 24 hours, it is always specified by the context or the construction. Such uses are never the type of uses found in Gen 1.

Sin did not affect animal life, only human-moral life, and brought about the penalty of death.

The animal that God killed to clothe Adam and Eve would probably differ with you about that, as would all the other animals who died as sacrifices, as would Paul in Rom 8 where he speaks the creation travailing because of sin, not just humanity.

This is an area where we need to get back to the Bible itself. To conclude that Genesis 1 is not speaking of 24 hour days is not an exegetical conclusion. It is driven by things outside of Scripture. It simply doesn't wash. There is no reason to seek anything other than 24 hour days in Gen 1. It is unnecessary and it is not what the text says.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So, critical study leads me (and of course, not me alone, but many scholars, of whom I am hardly one) to read Genesis 1-11 as poetry (maybe that suits us more than parable, myth, image?!).

But Hebrew scholars will tell you that Genesis 1 is not written like poetry is written. There is really no reason to see it as poetry.

 

[ajg1959]

Quote: What else is the Bible deceiving us on? If we cant believe the very first chapter, then surely there are other errors in the rest of the book as well.
----------------------------------------

Could this be your misconception of what scripture is saying, and not a deceptive passage at all?

Cheers,

Jim

Please tell me what part of "God created" could be misconcieved?

AJ

 

[ajg1959]

I made an attempt to generalize this discussion about that subject which can be found on p. 4 of this thread. But I will paste it here:

Would this passage be taken as literal, and is there indication in language, style, or culture that it does not apply to, and only to, Abraham's physical descendants?...

I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you (Genesis 17:7).

Now, consider this one (of several) NT passages which redefine the meaning:

And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise (Galatians 3:29).

Are (non-Israelite) Christians the descendants of Abaraham or not? Can OT history meant to be taken literally-- physically-- actually mean something other than the sense in which it was unquestionably understood in former times?

I dont understand how this changes the meaning or message of Gen?

AJ

 

[ajg1959]

Having helped launch the discussion on literal reading of Genesis, but not having wanted to fuel any more fires (besides which I have plenty of ministry things to do rather than sit at the computer and argue), I have stayed out of this thread for some days. But comments -- and this is not the first one -- that suggest that those of us who do not read all of the Bible literally, but see Genesis 1-11 as parable or image or myth or whatever (NOT allegory, as one poster said of my stance), have made me come back in to say that no one other than anti-Christian skeptics thinks that the Bible is deceptive. The Bible is a vehicle which has recorded the actions of a creating, redeeming God. About that I have no question.

But we do live in a world in which scientific habits of thought are prevalent, and which have to be taken into consideration. I am well aware that science is a philosophy as well as a methodology. But I cannot dismiss its conclusions, even if they are sometimes tentative conclusions. I have to take seriously what has been learned, and honesty compels me not to write them off or to twist them to fit my a priori hopes or wants. I have to read truth with BOTH the Biblical and the scientific lenses, and must apply critical faculties to both.

So, critical study leads me (and of course, not me alone, but many scholars, of whom I am hardly one) to read Genesis 1-11 as poetry (maybe that suits us more than parable, myth, image?!). My Philosophy of Religion professor used to put it like this: "We recite a little ditty, 'My love is like a red, red, rose". But we do not mean that the object of our affections has petals and thorns! It's poetry, it's simile or metaphor."

By the way, though it is common to speak about "believing" Genesis 1-11 literally or metaphorically, it seems to me that "thinking" is more appropriate. Belief is about faith and personal trust. What I think about the Bible and its message is prolegomena to belief, but is not its substitute. Therefore I do not subscribe to, among other things, the "house of cards" theory that argues that if one passage of the Bible is shown to be untrue, then it all topples. No, it does not. Truth is truth whatever the surroundings might be. And I never speak of a passage of the Bible as untrue ... only as prescientific and intended to take us to a deeper meaning than how many years we have been around or where the Garden was located, etc.

Rant finished. Back to sermon preparation.

You are a retired pastor?

I appreciate your years of service to the Lord, but the question remains,

If the first part of the Bible (Gen 1-11 according to you) is poetry and not true, then what else is just poetry?

As far as your argument of the Bible being a "house of cards" when it comes to believing it all or none....I stick to my original statement, when you decide that part of it is just "poetry" and not literal, what else can you discard as real?

AJ

 

[annsni]

A "Day" can be 24 hours, or a "year", as in Daniel's 70 week (490 years) prophecy, or a "thousand years",

so the definition of "day" depends on the "Context" in which it's used.

As I said before, "time", or the recording of time, didn't actually begin until sin enter the picture.

Sin placed a "time limit", a "recording of time" for man/planet to exist.

The "creation day" recorded a "pattern", but there's no "Record" of "time" to Judge the "CONTEXT" of how long each day represented.

And without a "context", each day could be 24 hours, a year, thousand years, or "anything".

"Day" when matched with an ordinal number in Hebrew means "a 24 hour period of time". It does not mean "years".

 

[Pastor Larry]

If the first part of the Bible (Gen 1-11 according to you) is poetry and not true, then what else is just poetry?

As far as your argument of the Bible being a "house of cards" when it comes to believing it all or none....I stick to my original statement, when you decide that part of it is just "poetry" and not literal, what else can you discard as real?

AJ, While I am in agreement with your argument and conclusion for the most part, the dichotomy between poetry and truth is a false one. The Bible is full of poetry, all of which is true.

People who believe that Gen 1 is myth or some such, believe it is true; they just believe it is saying something else. Now, to be clear, they have no leg to stand on. There is nothing in Genesis 1 that is poetic, and people who know poetry can see that very easily.

But let's make sure that we properly frame the argument.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, I am not defending the gap theory, but I do see a flaw in your argument.

If there was an old earth that was destroyed and rebuilt, how do you know for sure there wasnt sin in it?

I do not think for one second there was an "old earth" that was destroyed and rebuilt. No offense if you believe it, but I consider that idea ridiculous. It is called "reading into the text." It is not there. It seems to me to be a magical made-up idea in order to accommodate the theories of evolution.

If the theorists are correct and the 6 days in Gen was actually a restoration because God destroyed the first civilization, doesnt it make sense that that civilization must have been sinful? God wouldnt have destryed it if it was perfect and without sin.

I don't buy that theory about an earlier earth being destroyed.

It is tempting to point to scriptures in Romans that refer to sin entering into the world as proof that there couldnt have been a sinful world before ours, but it could also just be talking about the world that we live in now, and doesnt address a past world that has nothing to do with us or our relationship with God.

Reading into the text and accommodating evolution or old earth beliefs.

Again, I am not advocating that this is correct, I am just saying that your argument against it has holes in the logic.

Only if that crazy idea is true. And I don't think it is.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Gen.7:20 covers the earth with water above the mountain tops which helps explain to me why it is fairly easy to find clam shells and such up around Mt. Rainier, I know that for a fact having found some both at the river park at the base of the mountain just inside the park and up atop of Eagles Peak a nearby mountain in the park. Now Gen.8:1 answers us as to what happened to the water in one sentence verses 2-14 are more descriptive.

 

[Jim1999]

The angelic realm was obviously around before Adam and their was fault within that realm, hence the fallen angel called Satan. We don't a lot of details about the angelic realm, do we?

In prehistoric life, we are dealing with animal life and not human life as we know it. We do know that evolution is the process employed in animal development. Take the simple example of the wolf and the dog. This development is only wintessed in the wild, but it is there. We have no time line.

I know that many are quick to fault us for reading into a text regarding evolution, but those same people do not suggest they could be missing the mark whilst interpreting certain scriptures to favour their conceptions.

Sound biblical scholars have divided on such things as the gap theory, wether the flood was universal or local, with ample evidence in favour of a local flood, such as Jewish teaching and archeological digs,,nevermind the questionable areas such as carbon dating, just using geographical findings.

Cheers, happy searching,

Jim

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I guess that could be true about sound scholars seeing things both ways . It also depends on who you accept as a sound scholar. I for one would not give a plug nickel for the sound scholarship of anyone associated with the Jesus seminar. I would also not except the false scholarship of the so called higher critics. As far as I am concerned those people are dishonest they should quit what they are doing and go find some work they can believe in.

 

[Pastor Larry]

In prehistoric life, we are dealing with animal life and not human life as we know it. We do know that evolution is the process employed in animal development. Take the simple example of the wolf and the dog. This development is only wintessed in the wild, but it is there. We have no time line.

According to the Bible, there is no gap between animal life and human life. And scientifically there is no need for one. Evolution between a wolf and a dog really isn't the issue, Jim.

Sound biblical scholars have divided on such things as the gap theory,

Gap theory is an old view that has been pretty much disputed. Westin W. Fields put this to rest conclusively in his book 'Unformed and Unfilled.

wether the flood was universal or local, with ample evidence in favour of a local flood, such as Jewish teaching and archeological digs,,nevermind the questionable areas such as carbon dating, just using geographical findings.

There is no credible evidence, either textual or scientific, for a local flood. Is just doesn't exist.

Cheers, happy searching,

Te text is certainly the best place to search.

The irony of all this is that these views you are suggesting are things designed to make the Bible more palatable by doing away with this uneducated creation stuff. But it doesn't work.

Jim[/quote]

 

[Jedi Knight]

Would you believe it took Jesus 100,000,000 years to calm a storm? How about 30,0000,000 years to raise the dead guy in John 11 ? If Jesus says JUMP,creation says "How High?". I believe evolution is the glove of Atheism and Richard Dawkins affairmed this. Million ,Billion??....only with no God in the math. :type:

 

[Marcia]

The angelic realm was obviously around before Adam and their was fault within that realm, hence the fallen angel called Satan. We don't a lot of details about the angelic realm, do we?

In prehistoric life, we are dealing with animal life and not human life as we know it. We do know that evolution is the process employed in animal development. Take the simple example of the wolf and the dog. This development is only wintessed in the wild, but it is there. We have no time line.

A dog coming from a wolf is not the evolution that I am talking about. This is more mutation, not evolution.

I am talking about a species coming from another species - mammals from fish, birds from fish, whales from dogs (yes, that is what they say), men from apes.

 

[ajg1959]

I do not think for one second there was an "old earth" that was destroyed and rebuilt. No offense if you believe it, but I consider that idea ridiculous. It is called "reading into the text." It is not there. It seems to me to be a magical made-up idea in order to accommodate the theories of evolution.




I don't buy that theory about an earlier earth being destroyed.





Reading into the text and accommodating evolution or old earth beliefs.



Only if that crazy idea is true. And I don't think it is.

Marcia, I am not saying that the gap theory is correct or that I believe it, I am just saying that your arguments dont hold water.

Just because you dont "think" something doesnt make it untrue. I would love to argue more against the "old earth" theories, but you saying that you dont "think" it is true is not helping.

AJ

AJ

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, I am not saying that the gap theory is correct or that I believe it, I am just saying that your arguments dont hold water.

Just because you dont "think" something doesnt make it untrue. I would love to argue more against the "old earth" theories, but you saying that you dont "think" it is true is not helping.

AJ

I have excellent reasons for not thinking it's true: I believe the Genesis account of creation as it reads, 6 literal days. And it is affirmed in Exodus 20.

There is no proof for an old earth, so why do I need to prove that there isn't? The burden is on the people who believe in an old earth. That is a belief system.

 

[Amy.G]

We do know that evolution is the process employed in animal development.

No. We know that everything reproduces after its own kind.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.


A bird evolving into a dinasaur is not reproducing after its kind.