Poll concerning Creation(ism)

[ReformedBaptist]

Not necessarily. Both are based on observable facts or occurences.

Where has molecules-to-man evolution been observed? Where are the transitional forms in the fossil record or living?

 

[Baptist Believer]

So long as we stick with the testimony of the resurrection as was given by the actual eye witnesses we need not gather clues. Along the same line so long as we stick to the words of the one who did the creating we need not depend on clues as well.

Yet the words themselves provide evidence that they are not to be interpreted literally.

I'm all for sticking with the text and not trying to interpret the text by scientific trends and theories. (That's what "creation scientists" do.) The first two chapters (especially the first) gives quite a bit of evidence against taking it as literal prose.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yet the words themselves provide evidence that they are not to be interpreted literally.

I'm all for sticking with the text and not trying to interpret the text by scientific trends and theories. (That's what "creation scientists" do.) The first two chapters (especially the first) gives quite a bit of evidence against taking it as literal prose.

lol. To each his own as they say? What creation scientists are you referring to?

Also, what evidence are you talking about?

 

[Revmitchell]

Yet the words themselves provide evidence that they are not to be interpreted literally.

I'm all for sticking with the text and not trying to interpret the text by scientific trends and theories. (That's what "creation scientists" do.) The first two chapters (especially the first) gives quite a bit of evidence against taking it as literal prose.

How sad for you.:tear:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Interpreting scripture by using mans faulty science as the standard for truth is not interpreting scripture at all. Scripture is the source and standard by which we should obtain our view of science. Mans science is faulty and ever changing. Scirpture is reliable forever. (literally)

Faulty Science? What do you mean? Science is a methodology of proving a hypothesis dependent on the facts. Theology can be looked as a science because it is a methodology of determining a truth or the truth by what people consider a revelation of God. Taking for granted that there is a God and God has revealed himself to us. Theology is an approach to understand his revelation. Science is similar because it takes known observances, comes up with a hypotheseis in order to understand the facts and tries to prove the hypothesis. Sometimes its done by duplication in a controlled environment. Sometimes it looks for more facts to substantiate the hypothesis. As far as the theory I was talking about here is a quote:

The six days of creation are divided into panels of three days each that are matched. A comparison of the two panes reveals that in the first three days God builds a stage of the heavens, water, and land; and in the coreresponding second three days fills this stage with its priamary actors, each in turn. The last day in each panel, days three and six, have a double task. This serves to emphasize how especially fertile the land is. Moreover, the climactic seenth day is a celebration of the goodness of this creation and becomes the model for human rest and celebration of divine goodness each week...The same order is followed in the ancient creation myth from Babylon called Enuma Elish in which Marduk, the chief god of Babylon and young king of all the gods, fashions the world from the body of Tiamat the mother goddess whom he had slain in battle.
Enuma Elish Genesis 1
1. conquest of chaos by order 1. Opening statement of Genesis
2. Heavens created and separtated by 2. Day 2 creadiotn of heaven and
water seperation of water
3. The earth is set over waters 3. Day 3 the land appears from waters
4. Creation of sun and moon 4. Day 4 sun and moon are set
5. No mention of plants or animals 5. Day 5-6 creation of animals
6. Creation of Human Beings 6. creation of humans
7. The gods rest and celibrate 7. Day 7 God rest.

The major differences between the biblical accounts and the stories of other religions center on the clear connection in the Bible between a single God's loving care for humanity, the moral refusal of people to obey God, and the justified reason that God imposed a sentaence of mortality upon us togehter with a changein our relation to the land that now requires backbreaking labor to make it a blessing...
although they may not have hppened exactly the way they are described they relate individual events as they have been passed down, and which have shaped the special identity of Isreal. Both types of writing give us models to follow but of course, not in the same way.

 

[Revmitchell]

Faulty Science? What do you mean? Science is a methodology of proving a hypothesis dependent on the facts. Theology can be looked as a science because it is a methodology of determining a truth or the truth by what people consider a revelation of God. Taking for granted that there is a God and God has revealed himself to us. Theology is an approach to understand his revelation. Science is similar because it takes known observances, comes up with a hypotheseis in order to understand the facts and tries to prove the hypothesis. Sometimes its done by duplication in a controlled environment. Sometimes it looks for more facts to substantiate the hypothesis. As far as the theory I was talking about here is a quote:

I mean just what I said. Proving? What science was used to prove pluto was a planet? And what science was used to prove it is now an ice ball? What science was used to prove the claim that the earth was headed toward an ice age? And now what science was used to now say that the earth has been warming instead of cooling as was claimed 30 years ago. Science is ever changing because new evidence comes into play on a regualr basis. It seems to work hard to keep up with the changes at Microsoft.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

"Science is similar because it takes known observances, comes up with a hypotheseis in order to understand the facts and tries to prove the hypothesis. Sometimes its done by duplication in a controlled environment. Sometimes it looks for more facts to substantiate the hypothesis."

And in a perfect inbiased world, this actually works! lol

 

[SBCPreacher]

How sad for you.:tear:

How sad indeed.

As soon as we start discounting parts of the Bible as not literally true, then we might as well throw the whole thing away. Either it is ALL TRUE or it is NOT TRUE AT ALL.

Who are we, as puny men, to pick and chose which parts of God's Word is true? Since when did the creation get to tell the Creator what's true and what's not? It's God's Word, not ours. It's all true - even the creation account.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I mean just what I said. Proving? What science was used to prove pluto was a planet? And what science was used to prove it is now an ice ball? What science was used to prove the claim that the earth was headed toward an ice age? And now what science was used to now say that the earth has been warming instead of cooling as was claimed 30 years ago. Science is ever changing because new evidence comes into play on a regualr basis. It seems to work hard to keep up with the changes at Microsoft.

well they used physics and gravety pulls to determine that there should be a planetoid body where Pluto is. And they've discovered (key word there) that it is actually a binary body (Two almost similiar sized bodys revolving around each other) Probably (means unsure) from the Ord field. Either way math and observation led to the hypothesis. As we gain more data the better idea we get. Doesn't mean God didn't do it. Science is not an entitiy to itself. You seem to think it is.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"Science is similar because it takes known observances, comes up with a hypotheseis in order to understand the facts and tries to prove the hypothesis. Sometimes its done by duplication in a controlled environment. Sometimes it looks for more facts to substantiate the hypothesis."

And in a perfect inbiased world, this actually works! lol

Very true.

 

[Revmitchell]

well they used physics and gravety pulls to determine that there should be a planetoid body where Pluto is. And they've discovered (key word there) that it is actually a binary body (Two almost similiar sized bodys revolving around each other) Probably (means unsure) from the Ord field. Either way math and observation led to the hypothesis. As we gain more data the better idea we get. Doesn't mean God didn't do it. Science is not an entitiy to itself. You seem to think it is.

I don't need an explanation of the Pluto debacle. I asked a rhetorical question to make a point. Where in the world did you get the idea I thought God didn't do it? Apparently you dont get what I think about science. I will spell it out:

Science is unreliable and not to be used to interpret scripture. The word of God is always reliable and true even when it speaks to science and history.

 

[tinytim]

We believe in the resurrection because of eye witness reports.. These are observable, and provide proof...
We believe them because they were from faithful, and trustworthy sources...


We also believe in Creation because of eyewitness testimony.
We believe this testimony because it was given from someone who is faithful and trustworthy...

GOD.

God revealed to us what he did.
Whether it is Poetry, or narration, it doesn't matter.
God is trustworthy, therefore his eyewitness testimony must be trusted.

Therefore what he said in Genesis is absolutely true.

Remember, God is trying to explain to finite man something that only the infinite can understand.

So when it says "Evening and Morning" before the sun was created, this is his way of putting the information into our understanding. (Especially the Hebrew's understanding)

The same thing happens when the Bible says that the sun stood still in Joshua's day...
While the Bible says the sun stood still, we know it was the earth that really stood still, but from the Hebrew's POV, it was the Sun that didn't move.
So they recorded what they observed, and drew logical conclusions from it.

Today, we have so much knowledge that the ancient Hebrews lacked...
Can you imagine Moses explaining Baptistboard, the internet, airplanes, diseases, etc...
Today, thanks to Science, we can explain things that the Hebrews couldn't.
But God is behind Science also.

True Science simply explains the laws of the universe and reality in which we live and exist... (remember God is big enough to have other universes, and realities out there, and a lot of scientists believe this is a possibility... google "String Theory" .. a Creation Scientist, and friend of mine talked about this last yr at our Youth Camp.)

True Science explains the laws that God put into motion.

 

[SBCPreacher]

We believe in the resurrection because of eye witness reports.. These are observable, and provide proof...
We believe them because they were from faithful, and trustworthy sources...


We also believe in Creation because of eyewitness testimony.
We believe this testimony because it was given from someone who is faithful and trustworthy...

GOD.

God revealed to us what he did.
Whether it is Poetry, or narration, it doesn't matter.
God is trustworthy, therefore his eyewitness testimony must be trusted.

Therefore what he said in Genesis is absolutely true.

Remember, God is trying to explain to finite man something that only the infinite can understand.

So when it says "Evening and Morning" before the sun was created, this is his way of putting the information into our understanding. (Especially the Hebrew's understanding)

The same thing happens when the Bible says that the sun stood still in Joshua's day...
While the Bible says the sun stood still, we know it was the earth that really stood still, but from the Hebrew's POV, it was the Sun that didn't move.
So they recorded what they observed, and drew logical conclusions from it.

Today, we have so much knowledge that the ancient Hebrews lacked...
Can you imagine Moses explaining Baptistboard, the internet, airplanes, diseases, etc...
Today, thanks to Science, we can explain things that the Hebrews couldn't.
But God is behind Science also.

True Science simply explains the laws of the universe and reality in which we live and exist... (remember God is big enough to have other universes, and realities out there, and a lot of scientists believe this is a possibility... google "String Theory" .. a Creation Scientist, and friend of mine talked about this last yr at our Youth Camp.)

True Science explains the laws that God put into motion.

AMEN! Thanks Tim!

 

[tinytim]

How sad indeed.

As soon as we start discounting parts of the Bible as not literally true, then we might as well throw the whole thing away. Either it is ALL TRUE or it is NOT TRUE AT ALL.

Who are we, as puny men, to pick and chose which parts of God's Word is true? Since when did the creation get to tell the Creator what's true and what's not? It's God's Word, not ours. It's all true - even the creation account.

So you believe the Sun stood still instead of the Earth in Joshua?
Do you believe there are corners on the earth? like in the 4 corners... when they believed the earth was flat...


It is impossible to apply everything the Bible says "literally"... some of the things the Bible talks about is symbolic.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

"It is impossible to apply everything the Bible says "literally"... some of the things the Bible talks about is symbolic."

Timmy..you know as well as I do that this is an over-literal statement on a literal hermeneutic... :laugh:

 

[SBCPreacher]

So you believe the Sun stood still instead of the Earth in Joshua?
Do you believe there are corners on the earth? like in the 4 corners... when they believed the earth was flat...


It is impossible to apply everything the Bible says "literally"... some of the things the Bible talks about is symbolic.

Agreed. But, for the most part, it can be (and should be) taken literally. It seems that many today are trying to explain away then truth of God's Word. I think that moves them into dangerous territory.

As you said in your previous post. When it come to creation, we do have a reliable eyewitness account - God's account. That's good enough for me.


And one more thing. It seems that many are very willing to compromise on the Word of God to somehow get it to agree with secular science. My approach is this: if science and God's Word don't agree, then one of them is wrong - and it ain't God's Word.

 

[tinytim]

I am not picking SBC....

But when I hear someone saying they believe in interpretting the Bible literally, they don't mean interpretting everything literally...
Because when they come to a symbollic passage, they will inevitably say,
"Now this passage MEANS..."

And when you apply a meaning to a passage, the passage is no longer literal... but Symbolic....

Take the prophecy of the fig tree....
Do we take what Jesus said as literal...
If so, when we see a fig tree blooming, we know that Jesus is coming...
Or do we apply the symbolism to it.. and say, "The fig tree means Israel"

See what I am saying...

Not trying to be mean, or controversial.. but I have yet met a preacher that takes everything in the Bible as 100% literal...

If they did, they would be fruitcakes!!!

They would be drinking Jesus's blood, and eating His flesh...

 

[preachinjesus]

The sad thing about this is too many make how one reads a confusing passage a test for fellowship and (as some have said here) a test of salvation. How sad.

We can say trite Christian colloquailisms about believing because God said but God's inspiration of the writers is different than Him speaking as He did at the creation of all this stuff. Of course that is a matter of belief on the nature of intrepretation.

I've just never bought the whole line that we have to read the Bible with both eyes closed to reasonable thinking and questions. I have plenty of friends, sound, evangelical, Jesus loving Christians, who have serious questions about the nature of creation. We have been talking through their thoughts and questions and into more questions. For many they cannot easily divorce faith and reason (and frankly I don't believe we should.) While we are to practice fides quaerens intllectum we must do so realizing that many of our faithful brothers and sisters since the first church have had legitimate and serious questions about the nature of creation and the literalness of that process. Even Augustine had serious questions.

We cannot, we must not, sweep them away with trite colloquailisms and make such a minor issue a test of one's salvation.

editted to add: besides I don't see anyone here saying God didn't create the world. I do see some legitimate questions about how that happened. I simply say we cannot know for certain, but can certainly have faith.

 

[SBCPreacher]

I simply say we cannot know for certain, but can certainly have faith.

No offense intended, but why can't we know for certain? Why is it so hard to accept that God's Word is true on the matter?

Is God holding out on us? Is He lying to us?

 

[Revmitchell]

The creation account is not a secondary issue. It establishes the gospel it is not separate.