Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
But we are talking about Genesis, not about Moses' words to the children of Israel at Sinai.Originally posted by lchemist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Can you demonstrate that the words delivered to the children of Israel by Moses after having spent time in the presence of God Himself were in some way equivalent to ancient mythology?
I think you misundesttod the issue, we are not infallibles, we are doing the opposite of what you said, we are not fixing on one interpretation,God's Word is true not our humble approch to it.Originally posted by Phillip:
My whole point has been and is that you are trying so hard to convince yourself something is true you have to base it on something you can see, feel or touch.
We rely on the Bible, but in order to understand it rightly we have to use all the tools God has made available to us, what I was trying to say is that we cannot ignore the achievements of the people who studied the bible before us, specifically I was talking about literary genres and form criticism.Notice that you cannot JUST rely on what the Bible says. You MUST rely on something historical, that in your opinion, can be proven. For example you place a requirement on the study of Genesis 1:11 right in your last sentence: "considering the studies done in the last 200 years of biblical scholarship."
I was referring to a way of reading the bible that misses a lot of its richness and turns it into a wooden supposedly historical accountIn fact, I am not sure exactly what you are asking for (YEC is not a Biblical possibility.)?
Yes, that is call the "analogy fides"The Bible wasn't just written for people from 1800 until now. Obviously, people from 1500 to 1800 would have to interpret it in a certain way also. Should we study how most Christians interpreted it?
I don't understand that statement, people hold differnt interpretations for a variety of reasons, and I do not think it matters much wich traslation you use, KJV, NIV, NRSV or even the Hebrew text.You say that the number of Christians interpreting this a certain way (example: this poll) does not have anything to do with the translation of the Bible. Obviously, after thinking about this, maybe it does.
Where is that interpretation? Probably most contemporary christians do not hold Gen 1ss as historical accounts.In using your own point that the early people who read the Bible would have interpreted it one way. Today, most Christians interpret it a certain way. Since God is not a God of confusion then the massive interpretion method without having to add outside evidence is most likely to be the legitimate way God wanted it to be understood.
Actually only a minority of christians are literallist, (except in this forum), but you are reinforcing my point here, because the bible is for all generatiuons, it cannot be fixed to any age view of nature, its message is eternal.There are very few of you who are trying to change the interpretation to fit your world view. The remainder of the Christians seem to be interpreting it as a literal story. Therefore, maybe God wanted us to interpret literally since the Bible is meant for all generations from the ancient man through the 21st century person.
Obviously it was Israel, but Genesis is not a part of the laws given at Sinai.Originally posted by Scott J:
Who do you think the initial recipients of Genesis were? Moses gave his writings to the people of Israel to establish their nation. Those writings detailed who they were, where they came from, and commandments for conduct in light of their special position with God.
So you acknowledge that if God in His sovereignty decided to create the world fully fitted for His purposes including what would appear to natural, fallible, carnal men to be an appearance of age in 6 days- there is no reason why He couldn't?Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"God could have chosen whatever starting point He willed including making everything exactly the way it is now."
Agree. We should not put God in little boxes of our own creation. We cannot understand His ways.
You have that backwards. I have no problem accepting any theory of origins that can be reconciled to God's inspired special revelation in written language without twisting, distorting, and ultimately denying the meaning of what was said."I am open to the idea that God recently created all living things in such a way that they would adapt and populate the world as He divinely ordained."
Closer. You are willing to admit that God could have allowed the present diversity of life to come about through adaptation. But you are still constructing a box into which you place God.
I have identifed my standard. I do not believe that species arose over millions of years by accumulated genetic complexity for two reasons. One, we don't observe that in nature- changes and adaptation but no increased complexity resulting in the formation of new species. Two, (and more importantly) it does not conform to the outline nor details of what God's Word said happened.But it is still stunning that you do not seem to have problem with ALL artiodactyls possibly being one "kind."
Or not. I am not placing a box around God as you appear to be attempting again.That is a lot of speciation!
So? I don't think I ever said that the changes were necessarily minor. I said they occurred relatively recently according to the biblical time frame and that the animals created reproduced after their "kind"- meaning that they inherited all traits and abilities to adapt from their parents.Once you allow for that much change, then you really do not have a basis to claim that such change falls under minor variations with a "kind."
Not so long as you are talking about them coming about descendents of equal or less genetic complexity. It is the idea that ascent, not descent, that I have a problem with... both biblically and evidentially.There is no wall preventing higher groups from coming about through the same purposes.
True.We are ALL interpreting things about which we cannot be fully certain.
Let me rephrase for accuracy. One, what God said is literally true and man's interpretations based on the assumption that everything occurred by a long string of natural processes is inaccurate.Now the question is which set of interpretations are correct. As I see it, there are two possibilities. The first is that the creation account IS literal and that God for some unknown reason made His creation just look like he used inflation and billions of years of geology and common descent to create. The second is that God really did use long periods to create and the the creation account is meant to convey truth through non-literal means.
That is ridiculous and offensive. You think that we are failing just such a test for looking what the word of Genesis actually say and accepting it. God said it. It would be far more deceptive to say something knowing that someone would presume it to be literally true while it wasn't even a close parallel to the truth than to build something knowing that someone could possibly misunderstand your method of construction.As someone pointed out above, it is close to heretical to suggest that God would deceptively create as some sort of test.
But it is in His nature to say something knowing that almost everyone who believes in Him for 4000+ years would draw a false conclusion from it?It just does not seem to be in His nature.
Reference? What context? What are the cross-references used to determine the interpretation? On what basis is it thought to be non-literal? Was it said in a way that the audience knew that it was non-literal or could they have believed it was literal?Second, we do see that God has used non-literal language in other parts of the Bible to convey truth.
This was miraculous event and we have absolutely no idea what the mechanics were. Poor example. Further, isolated figures of speech and metaphors are not on par with a detailed passage that gives every internal indication of being literal and was accepted as literal throughout the rest of scripture.Saying that the sun stood still for Joshua rather than the earth.
Or environmental conditions on land were much more effective in purging these things out... or they don't all go back to the same ancestor.But, if your suggestion were true, then we would expect to find in the lad dwelling artiodactyls pseudogenes and atavisms of all those genes that were necessary to make the whales crop up occasionally.
Not unless this occurs without the influence of intelligence.I'll also remind you of something unpleasant. Over the coming years, we will be genetically sequencing the genomes of much of earth's life. Right now we cannot point to the genes that make whales different. But that may not always be the case. You are hanging you hat on a brabch that is likely to be cut off in a couple of decades.
Which is exactly what the proponents of macroevolution do except they couch their unsubstantiated claims in technical jargon and blend it with microevolution by obscuring the difference even though there is no evidence anywhere that microevolution ever results in macroevolution."I did. You simply didn't like it."
No, you simnply made a genral statement about genetically rich adaptable initial populations. You never tried any explanation of what this meant until now.
I don't presume naturalism so I don't presume this to be a problem for God.
First, most young earthers realize that if the flood were global, then there would not be ebough room for all the species to fit so they say that only "kinds" were carried aboard and they later speciated.
Just gave you a way.They also say that the flood created essentially all of the fossils.
Do you see a problem here? I do. How could all those various species get drowned and fossilized in the flood if they did not speciate until afterwards?
Did you know that all of these capabilities were inherited and that none of them arose spontaneously? Did you know that the result of all of these duplications and mutations was never the evolution of a new species or anything like such a transition?Nope. I have the observed mechanism of duplication and mutation to generate new information. Did you know that the recent human geneome project had to reduce by thousands its initial estimate of the number of human genes because there were so many duplications? Did you know that many diverse families of genes can be traced to repeated duplication events?
No limits on God... limits on man. I believe God's ability to accurately represent what He wants us to believe is infinitely more effective than man's ability to interpret nature or to expand those interpretations into a factual history of what must have occurred."If what happened is completely different from what He said happened then truly how can we know what is real about us?"
God can convey truth non-literally. He does so in other parts of the Bible. You limit God.
"Then you turn around and propose that He did exactly that in Genesis... except it isn't potential information, it is actual.
"
God can convey truth non-literally. He does so in other parts of the Bible. You limit God.
Obviously it was Israel, but Genesis is not a part of the laws given at Sinai.Originally posted by lchemist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Who do you think the initial recipients of Genesis were? Moses gave his writings to the people of Israel to establish their nation. Those writings detailed who they were, where they came from, and commandments for conduct in light of their special position with God.
We wouldn't know his reasons, but we know that he did what he did, becauses he so desired. He is Lord and he doen't owe us any explanation.Originally posted by Scott J:
assume a direct creator, an omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, willful Creator.
Now, if He were going to create the world, what reason would He have for not creating it just as He needed it to be (ie. fully mature)?
His Word tell us what he did exactly as he wanted it, not for us to have "an account", but for every generation to understand his love and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ.What reason would He have for using an allegory that doesn't even accurately parallel what actually happened (assuming evolution true)?
Both are true, no difficulty here.Can you give me a reason why you have more difficulty believing that God spoke everything in existence exactly as it needed to be to accomplish His will than believing that Christ literally died and arose?
Because YEC is not supported by the evidence.I am not asking for the standard "appearance of age else deceptive God response" but rather why you find one of these propositions less possible than the other.
Again, that is what we believe.Naturally speaking, resurrection is impossible... heaven and hell are impossible... prayer is impossible... Spirit guidance is ridiculous...etc. but no more nor less so than the idea that God created by a simple act of divine will.
Macroevolution is not supported by the evidence. It is an extrapolation of the evidence at best.Because YEC is not supported by the evidence.
And another thing...Because YEC is not supported by the evidence.
Very misguided individual, but at least an honest one!!Julian Huxley, one of the greatest advocates of evolution, said: "I do not believe in evolution because of it credibility; rather, I believe in it because to believe in God is far too incredible."
It is able, that is not the question. How he did it is.Originally posted by Scott J:
Luis, UT, et al.
Is a literal reading of Genesis possibly true? If you say it is not, in what way is God not able to create everything according to the outline and timeframe detailed there?
Macroevolution is not supported by the evidence. It is an extrapolation of the evidence at best. </font>[/QUOTE]May be, but the weight of the evidence points towards evolution rather than to YES, specially regarding the idea of a very young earth, which is ridiculous in view of the geological data.Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Because YEC is not supported by the evidence.
We do not deny that, we just disagree on the method.Originally posted by Scott J:
God said He created by a supernatural act of will.
I am not sure what evidence could be stronger than an eyewitness account by the Creator of something whose very nature precludes deception or flaw.
That is not true, the bible is absolutly silent on the issue, as it is on electronics, or biochemistry.Originally posted by DHK:
You cannot be an evolutionist and a believe the Bible at the same time. There is absolutely no possibility (theologically speaking) that God, in His Word, has left any room for evolution.
Again with the atheists issue, we do not care about what atheists think, this is a debate between baptists believers. By the way, evolution is no more atheist than the law of gravity.Evolution is an atheistic system
DHK
If you had any knowledge of the Hebrew language and the precise words that are used in the first chapter on Genesis one, then you would know that God didn't leave any disagreement for the method of creation. He told us exactly how he created the world in six literal days. There is no other interpretation. There is no allegory here, and no proof of one. The Hebrew does not allow for one; only man's wishful thinking and his unbelief.Originally posted by lchemist:
We do not deny that, we just disagree on the method.
Luis
Nice job evading my whole post. If you don't want to deal with the reality of the fact that God created things mature, then just say so. Say you don't want to deal with it, but your being perplexed doesn't change anything. It just shows you are unwilling to consider this possibility.I have never understood this fascination with some that a "mature" creation could explain things.
First off, it is obvious to concede that there would of necessity be a certain level of maturity in a literal six day creation. The ground would need to be fertile, the plants and animals would need to be a variety of "ages," the man would have to be an adult (or at least not an infant), the sun would need to be stable, and so on. But many of the things cited as evidence of an old earth have absolutely nothing to do with maturity or functionality. All those inserts of viral DNA in your genome, for instance. This adds nothing to the functionality of the human body but does indicate a long period of time for all those inserts to be incorporated.
Second, it is a perplexing admission that a "mature" creation should appear to have been shaped by billions of years of change. What a strange concept. A normal, functioning universe would take billions of years to form. Our universe shows signs of having taken billions of years to form. And therefore it is young? It is an admission that all the evidence is against you yet you still deny it.
Very perplexing.
That is not true, the bible is absolutly silent on the issue, as it is on electronics, or biochemistry.</font>[/QUOTE]The Bible is not silent on evolution.Originally posted by lchemist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
You cannot be an evolutionist and a believe the Bible at the same time. There is absolutely no possibility (theologically speaking) that God, in His Word, has left any room for evolution.
Evolution is an atheistic system
DHK
Check the history of evolution. That is why I gave you a quote from Huxley. It originated, not from men of science--but from men of religion who had rejected God. It is an atheistic system of religion that takes more faith to believe in than any religion I know of. True science is observable facts, recorded, and then classified. No one has observed evolution taking place, and it still does not take place today. Who observed the Big Bang take place?Again with the atheists issue, we do not care about what atheists think, this is a debate between baptists believers. By the way, evolution is no more atheist than the law of gravity.
Blessings,
Luis
If you had any knowledge of the Hebrew language and the precise words that are used in the first chapter on Genesis one, then you would know that God didn't leave any disagreement for the method of creation. He told us exactly how he created the world in six literal days. There is no other interpretation. There is no allegory here, and no proof of one. The Hebrew does not allow for one; only man's wishful thinking and his unbelief.Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lchemist:
We do not deny that, we just disagree on the method.
Luis
The Big Bang is a cosmological theory that has nothing to do with evolution which is a biological theory. It is not a denial of Genesis. Obviously no one saw it but we have plenty of evidence pointing to irs reality.Originally posted by DHK:
In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth.
Evolution starts with the origin of the earth, with things like the "Big Bang" taught as fact in public schools. This is a denial of Genesis No one saw it.
Actually it is simply a biological theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth, it is not accepted due to the authority of any man, but because the body of scientific evidence supporting it is enormous.Check the history of evolution. It originated, not from men of science--but from men of religion who had rejected God. It is an atheistic system of religion
DHK