Lets try to Understand Genesis whilst believing Evolution.

Morbert

santing wrote: »

[As a creationist I think their first thought must have been: "Well God, you could have done this so much easier"]

Why would it have been easier?

Why call it 'theistic evolution'? Does appending the word 'theistic' make any scientific difference to the theory? I've not seen anything to suggest it does. Is it, then, just a rebranding for people who are suspicious that evolution might be a bit too atheist for them?

It is a little misleading but ultimately a good stance for a Christian to take. Theistic evolutionists fully accept all of evolution (They don't believe God tweaked any of our genes or anything like that.) They simply believe that evolution, like all of creation, serves God's purposes.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

As for when they were given their spirit, who knows? That information is not given to us.

I must say, despite our differences I do admire your willingness to admit when something is not known to us, as opposed to the religious propensity for assuming an answer.

It baffles me that you can accept these inconsistencies while still maintaining belief in the general explanation, however, but that's a different matter.

darjeeling

Morbert wrote: »

Theistic evolutionists fully accept all of evolution (They don't believe God tweaked any of our genes or anything like that.) They simply believe that evolution, like all of creation, serves God's purposes.

I think 'theistic evolution' covers a spectrum of belief from straight-up evolution with God looking on approvingly as His plans come to fruition, to a sort of ID-lite, where God occasionally nudges something on track, though no-one's prepared to say when, how or what.

JimiTime

darjeeling wrote: »

I think 'theistic evolution' covers a spectrum of belief from straight-up evolution with God looking on approvingly as His plans come to fruition, to a sort of ID-lite, where God occasionally nudges something on track, though no-one's prepared to say when, how or what.

I don't think its meant to Give creation a science twist, but rather its a term to set oneself apart from genesis literalists. The term does not infer anything from a science view, but rather infers science upon the theological view.

BTW, I like the fact that this thread is allowed continue without being spanked into 'THE MEGA THREAD'. Its a good topic, but once it goes in 'THERE', it just becomes inaudible with all the noise and I ignore. Reconciling evolution with references to Jesus being the second Adam, and The fall etc is a good topic that I think should be discussed without it constantly being pushed into the bin. I.E. The mega thread.

darjeeling

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think its meant to Give creation a science twist, but rather its a term to set oneself apart from genesis literalists. The term does not infer anything from a science view, but rather infers science upon the theological view.

'Christians who accept evolution' - or as Wicknight says above 'Christians who accept science' - would do that. 'Theistic evolution' implies the existence of 'atheistic evolution', both of which would be unhelpful and potentially misleading conflations of science and a theological position.

A separate point (not connected with your post JT) is the issue of how an active, engaged - er, theistic! - creator squares with an essentially passive, on-looking role as apparently described by many Christians who have assimilated evolution into their theology.

From the BioLogos website (link):

BioLogos wrote:

BioLogos states that “once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity," and “humans are part of this process.” Moreover, “once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.”

So how is BioLogos reconciled with a theistic, interactive God instead of the disinterested God of deism?

[...]

BioLogos does not seek a concept of a God who is involved at certain times and who only observes at other times. In harmony with theism, BioLogos affirms a God who is at all times involved, yet who still allows a degree of freedom to the creation.

That's not an answer, it's an evasion. A God who 'is involved at certain times', yet who was not required to make any 'special supernatural intervention' in the whole evolution of life?

Evolution - and our understanding of the unfolding of the universe in general - would seem to me to be far more compatible with deism or pantheism than with Christianity.

lmaopml

Ismhunter wrote: »

Hi.

I want to discuss how christians can overcome difficulties in reading genesis and the bible whilst holding to an evolution in some form. Im not that interested in Intelligent design and i dont have much faith that i will ever be convinced of creationism (again) . Maybe this is covered in the creationism, and prophecy thread but that thread is at least concerning creationism alone and is also by now a monster sized thread!

My own story was that after becoming an evangelical christian i fairly soon swallowed what was put to me that Gen 1 2 and 3 are literal discriptions of history. I started to change because of two things. 1. was that quite a lot of creationists were not scientists but those that were Ken ham etc i found condesending and increasingly i was put off by the attitudes of creationists that i met. 2 was that increasingly i met non-christian sceintists who it seemed to me where just honestly doing there job. the creationist argument is that there is an atheist conspiracy but increasingly that became an untenable position.

Last year i asked Craig Bloomberg a semi famous evangelical how many "famous christians" did he think were creationists. He said 5%. i was shocked by that. Then i found that more and more christians are saying they believe in evolution, most of them are the guys whose books we read. Up until then my biggest hurdle had been death before the fall. Evolution demands death as a part of its process but if theres death before the fall that contradicts the bible as its written. But then low and behold i found out the CALVIN !! himself (check out his commentary on Gen 3 ) surmised that perhaps the death had already been a part of the scene before the fall and that before the curse death was a part of the natural order of things. That it would have been a thing that was looked to and in a sense a process of passing over to the other side. ( i think C.S. Lewis shows this happeinging in his prelandria stories now that i think of it )

Right now i can see everything from Adam and Eve onwards as possible but even there i have problems. What im hoping from this thread is that christians can come together to start discussing the various problems one can have when you have a high view of the bible AND believe in evolution. I suspect that there are more than i think out there. I am not at all interested in big long discussions about DNA, different kinds etc what i want to know about is how one can handle the text of the bible whilst holding to evolution. This thread is not for debating whether or not evolution is true per se but more about what that belief does to one who also believes in christianity. Im specifically interested in the questions and answers that arise from the text when you have this belief, to simply believe that Gen 1 is literal for instance makes explaining it very easy but if you dont how do you explain Gen 1. Kapish??

I would ask that we deal with trolls by ignoring them. Creationists who feel enraged/upset/movedtowrite - please put questions to us rather than get mad if you can at all and dont hesitate to give us your questions as it is those very questions after all that we need.

Thanks

I can only answer for myself. I am a firm believer in evolution. I've studied, went to uni and worked in a field that has been (pre kiddies - and hopefully in a year or two again ) fascinating and leaves me in no doubt....I was an agnostic / atheist at the time....with this BIG huge ? over what exactly I believed, cause I didn't have a clue, and everybody seemed so bloody sure - I found out they aren't quite as sure as they come across, and decided to just 'live' and tbh, just enjoy it, and give in to the ????? I had.........

To answer the 'reconcile' question.....I don't! I would neither regard myself as 'Creationist' or 'Intelligent Design' or any other 'tag' that people try to fix to you. I'm just me, 'lmaopml', doing my thing, and finding my way and I'm more than happy....

..and as much as I thought I knew, I found out there is so much more I don't. So, without further ado I decided to get to know 'me' lol..... and now that I am quite content just living in peace with everybody around me and if at all possible rather than fight for a 'side' to fight for 'freedom' of expression and belief..

Ismhunter

Santing : thanks for all your respones so far. I am learning from you.
I want to zero in on one thing you said

You said "Its the fundamental question... If we accept the Bible as God's Word, without error, as a book given to us by Him, than that gives us a basis to work with. If however, we decide that the Bible is human work with cultural limitations, than we don't have much to base our discussion on."

This statement to me seems to be a the crux of the diffenrence of our opinions. time and time again i have met either creationist or fundementalists who start making claims that i see the bible as not inerrant or as a human book or as not God's words when it becomes apparent that i dont agree with them. I would like you to know here and now that i ABSOLUTELY agree that the Bible is God's word, innerrant in the original autographs and the only basis for which we can know God. This does not mean that we dont take in cultural considerations when we are interpretating it . Taking Genesis 123 or even to 11 as historical narrative is not the only way of reading it as far as i can see. Other parts of the bible are not taking literally when the so easily could be e.g. Do you kiss every brother or sister you meet with a holy kiss? Is the commuion bread actually Jesus' body and the communion drink his blood?

I would also counter argue that your agrument via Moses knowning Egyptian Mthyology's account of creation which was a slow process as not evidence that he was purposefully showing us the scientific truth of creation by going against the assumed knowledge as one could also point out that was simply ignoring assumed science because he was making a scientific treatise on how we came about and was instead utillising poetry to show characteristics of creation mankind and God that were incorrect in the egyptian view. Such as for instance that the world is not chaotic but rather that it was created Good.

santing

Ismhunter wrote: »

Santing : thanks for all your respones so far. I am learning from you.
I want to zero in on one thing you said

You said "Its the fundamental question... If we accept the Bible as God's Word, without error, as a book given to us by Him, than that gives us a basis to work with. If however, we decide that the Bible is human work with cultural limitations, than we don't have much to base our discussion on."

This statement to me seems to be a the crux of the diffenrence of our opinions. time and time again i have met either creationist or fundementalists who start making claims that i see the bible as not inerrant or as a human book or as not God's words when it becomes apparent that i dont agree with them. I would like you to know here and now that i ABSOLUTELY agree that the Bible is God's word, innerrant in the original autographs and the only basis for which we can know God. This does not mean that we dont take in cultural considerations when we are interpretating it . Taking Genesis 123 or even to 11 as historical narrative is not the only way of reading it as far as i can see. Other parts of the bible are not taking literally when the so easily could be e.g. Do you kiss every brother or sister you meet with a holy kiss? Is the commuion bread actually Jesus' body and the communion drink his blood?

Thanks for this clarification. It makes discussing this topic (or rather any topic) much easier knowing that we have the same base of authority. I hope I didn't give you the impression that I accused you of the opposite! I totally agree that there are various writing styles in the Bible, and also cultural considerations, however, it doesn't mean that we can ever say: "that was for that culture only," and act the opposite way. For instance, if I take your example of the "holy kiss," what we must learn from this is that (a) Christians have relationship amongst each other that is comparable to human families and (b) expressions of our warm love must be done in "holiness."
Since we have agreed on the base of authority, I would like to expand that a little further (which is not laying down an addtional rule, but explaining the agreed rule further:

The Bible is always sufficient for all matters of belief and practice.

Ismhunter wrote: »

I would also counter argue that your agrument via Moses knowning Egyptian Mthyology's account of creation which was a slow process as not evidence that he was purposefully showing us the scientific truth of creation by going against the assumed knowledge as one could also point out that was simply ignoring assumed science because he was making a scientific treatise on how we came about and was instead utillising poetry to show characteristics of creation mankind and God that were incorrect in the egyptian view. Such as for instance that the world is not chaotic but rather that it was created Good.

Moses did indeed not try to write down the scientific truth of creation, and in general I would doubt if anyone would day that the style of writing in any part of the Bible is "Scientific!" In Science the only time you use the word "Good" is after examining the knowledge of your students. I have problems though seeing the poetic side of Genesis 1. Poetry obeys rules, I don't see any rules of poetry in this chapter. If I compare Genesis 1 with say Psalm 89 (which speaks poeticallly about creation) I find a huge difference.

darjeeling

I think this essay by Laurence Moran on the relationship between science and religion is very good, and I agree entirely with what it says.

It explains why science has to be areligious (not irreligious, note), why it has to use 'methodological naturalism' - the starting assumption that the universe is governed by immutable laws that cannot be suspended by miraculous, supernatural intervention. I remember the writer Louis de Bernieres saying he gave up magical realism because it made plot writing too easy - you could drop the most fantastical ideas into your stories at whim. Similarly, if you tried to do non-naturalistic science, you could slot your own imagined miracles into your modelling wherever you wanted. Terrific! Except your explanations would be entirely arbitrary and of no practical use - in contrast to what naturalistic science has delivered.

Of course, science doesn't tell you that naturalism is the right assumption. Many people choose to believe that it is, given the remarkable success of the scientific project at understanding the universe by proceeding from this initial position. You can, though, choose to accept what the scientific method tells you about, say, evolution, while simultaneously believing that what actually happened was different, though inaccessible to science. Your critics may say this is a variant of 'Last Thursdayism', but you can live with that.

What I don't think is acceptable is to produce an unholy mishmash of science and religion, then pretend that it is science. 'Theistic evolution' - which gives God an (unspecified) active role in evolution - may or may not be true, but it cannot be science.

And if only everyone grasped this, then all of the apparent conflicts between science and religion would fall away!

And I think that's enough on TE from me for now.

santing

darjeeling wrote: »

I think this essay by Laurence Moran on the relationship between science and religion is very good, and I agree entirely with what it says.

It explains why science has to be areligious (not irreligious, note), why it has to use 'methodological naturalism' ...

What I don't think is acceptable is to produce an unholy mishmash of science and religion, then pretend that it is science. 'Theistic evolution' - which gives God an (unspecified) active role in evolution - may or may not be true, but it cannot be science.

And if only everyone grasped this, then all of the apparent conflicts between science and religion would fall away!

Hi Darjeeling,
During my first year at university I folllowed a course "what is science" which basically boiled down to the fact that there is no scientific answer to that qeustion, and that the answer has been frased differently by different philosphers in different times. The essay you referenced takes one view of science (be it a good definitin or not) and puts some of my university teachers (and probably me too) amongst the "intolerant religious extremists" - thank you.

In defence of Alvin Plantinga who is mainly attacted in that article, I would propose you read his article "Religion and Science" in which he discusses many answers on the questions "What is Science."

darjeeling wrote: »

And I think that's enough on TE from me for now.

I agree, let's keep the "What is Science" question out of this discussion.

darjeeling

santing wrote: »

The essay you referenced takes one view of science (be it a good definitin or not) and puts some of my university teachers (and probably me too) amongst the "intolerant religious extremists" - thank you.

The essay only refers generally to 'Christians who are opposed to science' as 'intolerant religious extremists' (I wouldn't necessarily use such stark terms myself). If you choose to label yourself as such, that is your choice, not the essay writer's and certainly not mine.

santing wrote: »

In defence of Alvin Plantinga who is mainly attacted in that article, I would propose you read his article "Religion and Science" in which he discusses many answers on the questions "What is Science."

I've had a read, but I found nothing to convince me. If you wanted to highlight anything in particular, then you might do so, as I did in my last post.

Anyway, as for allowing miracles as a causal mechanism in science - I'd love to know how it could be done in practice! Philosophers like Plantinga can blow smoke all they like; down on the bench, the people who actually do science do not entertain the possibility of miracles, because once you let them in then anything can be explained by an infinite number of equally plausible (or implausible?) alternative miraculous scenarios.

santing wrote: »

let's keep the "What is Science" question out of this discussion.

If you are asking how to reconcile evolution - a scientific theory - with Genesis, then I do think it is important that you look at what constitutes a scientific theory - in theory and in practice.

Morbert

santing wrote: »

I have problems though seeing the poetic side of Genesis 1. Poetry obeys rules, I don't see any rules of poetry in this chapter. If I compare Genesis 1 with say Psalm 89 (which speaks poeticallly about creation) I find a huge difference.

What about allegory? Illustrating truths through stories and metaphors is a common practise.

santing

Morbert wrote: »

What about allegory? Illustrating truths through stories and metaphors is a common practise.

The problem with allegory is that you can make an allegory out of anything - which has happened in the past with the Bible! Now of course there are many allegories in the Bible, but they are well defined, or beter said "easy to spot." Given that the theme of Genesis is historic, there is nothing that gives away that the first chapters are anything different.
I would (try to) adhere to the old old, safe and sane principle of "Sensum ne inferas, sed efferas" ("Do not carry a meaning into (the Scriptures) but draw it out of (the Scriptures)
Making Genesis 1 an allegory is a "reading into" rather than "drawing out"

lmaopml

darjeeling wrote: »

Why call it 'theistic evolution'? Does prepending the word 'theistic' make any scientific difference to the theory? I've not seen anything to suggest it does. Is it, then, just a rebranding for people who are suspicious that evolution might be a bit too atheist for them?

I'm all for people - religious and otherwise - embracing science, but I see this conflation of theology and scientific theory as woolly thinking. Scientific theories don't make reference to gods because it doesn't help to go including the unspecified and unnecessary. That doesn't, though, mean that the theories exclude the possibility of gods. That's why I see no more need for 'theistic evolution' than for 'theistic relativity' or the 'theistic big bang'.

.

Exactly! I agree with you wholeheartedly. Science and it's studies cannot allow for a 'God' to have 'done it all'...because, firstly it would undermine the unbiased reasearch, and secondly they are discovering - and in the business of finding out origins and future with regards to physical, and natural causes. That's why I love science..lol...It's not about the metaphysical...

However it's not a 'worldview'...to me...It's just a 'tool' if you like...

It's merely part of my worldview..but there is so much more....perhaps as a result of studying philosophy etc..which I believe is the bridge between the strictly scientific mind and the strictly religious mind...I believe philosophy is necessary..

However, I do recognise where you are coming from...and can appreciate that it can cause conflictions....It's just a case of pushing forward though and keeping it 'real' personally..The philosophers of ancient times and even today are still asking the questions which spurn on the quest...

..Wow!

Ismhunter

santing wrote: »

The problem with allegory is that you can make an allegory out of anything - which has happened in the past with the Bible! Now of course there are many allegories in the Bible, but they are well defined, or beter said "easy to spot." Given that the theme of Genesis is historic, there is nothing that gives away that the first chapters are anything different.
I would (try to) adhere to the old old, safe and sane principle of "Sensum ne inferas, sed efferas" ("Do not carry a meaning into (the Scriptures) but draw it out of (the Scriptures)
Making Genesis 1 an allegory is a "reading into" rather than "drawing out"

Sorry mate. but i think the same can and is said about how you are taking Gen1 to be historical. It would seem more likely to take it as non-literal and therefore more methaphorical. This is of course just personal taste. We would have to look at what makes a text historical or allegorical. Im off to find some time to listen to fanny's recomendations. Happy hunting cairde.

Sam Vimes

santing wrote: »

The problem with allegory is that you can make an allegory out of anything - which has happened in the past with the Bible! Now of course there are many allegories in the Bible, but they are well defined, or beter said "easy to spot." Given that the theme of Genesis is historic, there is nothing that gives away that the first chapters are anything different.

There could be said to be one thing that gives away that the first chapters aren't meant to be taken literally. That thing is that science has definitively proven that we evolved from lower life forms and did not originate with two fully formed humans in the garden of Eden

You're left with three options

1. Every scientist in the world is wrong. I say every scientist because there's no such thing as a creation scientist
2. The bible is wrong
3. You have interpreted the bible incorrectly

It's highly unlikely that every scientist in the world is wrong so if I were you I would find the most palletable option to be 3, you've interpreted it incorrectly. You're only human after all, you could update your understanding of the bible, come to understand your god better and end the situation where you have to say that the whole of human learning is wrong because it disagrees with your interpretation of the bible. Everybody's happy

wolfsbane

Ismhunter wrote: »

Hi.

I want to discuss how christians can overcome difficulties in reading genesis and the bible whilst holding to an evolution in some form. Im not that interested in Intelligent design and i dont have much faith that i will ever be convinced of creationism (again) . Maybe this is covered in the creationism, and prophecy thread but that thread is at least concerning creationism alone and is also by now a monster sized thread!

My own story was that after becoming an evangelical christian i fairly soon swallowed what was put to me that Gen 1 2 and 3 are literal discriptions of history. I started to change because of two things. 1. was that quite a lot of creationists were not scientists but those that were Ken ham etc i found condesending and increasingly i was put off by the attitudes of creationists that i met. 2 was that increasingly i met non-christian sceintists who it seemed to me where just honestly doing there job. the creationist argument is that there is an atheist conspiracy but increasingly that became an untenable position.

Last year i asked Craig Bloomberg a semi famous evangelical how many "famous christians" did he think were creationists. He said 5%. i was shocked by that. Then i found that more and more christians are saying they believe in evolution, most of them are the guys whose books we read. Up until then my biggest hurdle had been death before the fall. Evolution demands death as a part of its process but if theres death before the fall that contradicts the bible as its written. But then low and behold i found out the CALVIN !! himself (check out his commentary on Gen 3 ) surmised that perhaps the death had already been a part of the scene before the fall and that before the curse death was a part of the natural order of things. That it would have been a thing that was looked to and in a sense a process of passing over to the other side. ( i think C.S. Lewis shows this happeinging in his prelandria stories now that i think of it )

Right now i can see everything from Adam and Eve onwards as possible but even there i have problems. What im hoping from this thread is that christians can come together to start discussing the various problems one can have when you have a high view of the bible AND believe in evolution. I suspect that there are more than i think out there. I am not at all interested in big long discussions about DNA, different kinds etc what i want to know about is how one can handle the text of the bible whilst holding to evolution. This thread is not for debating whether or not evolution is true per se but more about what that belief does to one who also believes in christianity. Im specifically interested in the questions and answers that arise from the text when you have this belief, to simply believe that Gen 1 is literal for instance makes explaining it very easy but if you dont how do you explain Gen 1. Kapish??

I would ask that we deal with trolls by ignoring them. Creationists who feel enraged/upset/movedtowrite - please put questions to us rather than get mad if you can at all and dont hesitate to give us your questions as it is those very questions after all that we need.

Thanks

Thank you for introducing this as a separate discussion from the Creation thread. It is an extremely important subject in itself, for all Christians. I'm sorry that I haven't had time till now to respond. Thanks to santing especially for defending the historic Christian position.

First, let me acknowledge your position that one can hold to an inerrant Scripture and also hold to evolution. Thinking Genesis 1-3 is metaphorical is not to say that it is in error or fictional. Creationists like myself do not accuse good brethren of denying the Scripture, only of misunderstanding it - and in doing so, leaving us without any rule of interpretation.

Let me deal with some of your specifics:
1. Ken ham etc i found condesending and increasingly i was put off by the attitudes of creationists that i met. I have not found them so - maybe your perception is too defensive, or mine too accepting.

2. increasingly i met non-christian sceintists who it seemed to me where just honestly doing there job. the creationist argument is that there is an atheist conspiracy but increasingly that became an untenable position. Our position is not that most evolutionist scientists are knowingly lying about evolution. They are adopting a very complex explanation of the evidence, one that has face-value credibility in itself and one that is made more credible because it is the establishment view. The conspiracy comes in by the intolerance of scientific creationism as an alternative explanation - it and the scientists who promote it are vilified and discriminated against.

3. i asked Craig Bloomberg a semi famous evangelical how many "famous christians" did he think were creationists. He said 5%. i was shocked by that. Then i found that more and more christians are saying they believe in evolution, most of them are the guys whose books we read. Depends on how one determines who is a 'famous Christian'. Most of the famous Christians I know of are creationists. But allowing that my theological circle may be narrower than some, even then I wonder at 5%.

4. Up until then my biggest hurdle had been death before the fall. Evolution demands death as a part of its process but if theres death before the fall that contradicts the bible as its written. You rightly identify the key issue.

5. But then low and behold i found out the CALVIN !! himself (check out his commentary on Gen 3 ) surmised that perhaps the death had already been a part of the scene before the fall and that before the curse death was a part of the natural order of things. That it would have been a thing that was looked to and in a sense a process of passing over to the other side. I'm sorry, you are totally mistaken. Calvin specifically says death was a result of the Fall. What you have confused it with is his suggestion that Adam, had he not fell, would have passed from this life - without dying - into the eternal state we now look forward to.

6. Im specifically interested in the questions and answers that arise from the text when you have this belief, to simply believe that Gen 1 is literal for instance makes explaining it very easy but if you dont how do you explain Gen 1. Kapish?? Excellent. Let me pose a few that puzzle me as to how a TE would explain them:
a. God describes His completed creation as 'very good' - but if evolution is true, billions of years of suffering and death are very good. Dying with cancer or emphysema today is very good. Animal predation is very good.

Does not the Bible describe death as the last enemy?

b. Adam and Eve's parents and siblings were soulless apes.

c. Noah built a ship and marooned himself and his family and samples of every land animal on it for over a year, when all they had to do was leave the valley before the Flood or row ashore. This local flood scenario just doesn't make sense of the text, while a global flood does.

d. Or maybe the suggestion is that the Noah story is also only metaphorical, that no such person or flood actually happened. This raises the question as to how one determines who in the Biblical accounts are historical figures and who are metaphors. Abraham? Jacob? Moses? David? Daniel? Jesus?

Which is the BIG issue - what rule of interpretation lets one say the Genesis account is non-historical but the Exodus or the Incarnation are historical facts? Adam & Eve; Noah & the Flood; Babel; Abraham, Isaac & Jacob; Joseph; Moses & the Exodus; David & Solomon & the Kingdom; Jesus' incarnation, miracles, death & resurrection - the rule that allows one to be non-historical allows all to be treated likewise.

Jesus might or might not be a real person, and if real he might or might not have physically risen from the dead. It all might be a story, a metaphor given by the founders of the new sect to teach how we should live sacrificial lives and look to God to raise our spirits when we die.

santing

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're left with three options

I disagree with your three options, but that's not part of this discussion.

santing

Ismhunter wrote: »

We would have to look at what makes a text historical or allegorical. Im off to find some time to listen to fanny's recomendations. Happy hunting cairde.

Maybe reading Genesis 6 - 50 gives an indication of whether Genesis should be read as historical or allegorical?
BTW have we now eliminated Poetic for Genesis 1-3?

lmaopml

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There could be said to be one thing that gives away that the first chapters aren't meant to be taken literally. That thing is that science has definitively proven that we evolved from lower life forms and did not originate with two fully formed humans in the garden of Eden

You're left with three options

1. Every scientist in the world is wrong. I say every scientist because there's no such thing as a creation scientist
2. The bible is wrong
3. You have interpreted the bible incorrectly

It's highly unlikely that every scientist in the world is wrong so if I were you I would find the most palletable option to be 3, you've interpreted it incorrectly. You're only human after all, you could update your understanding of the bible, come to understand your god better and end the situation where you have to say that the whole of human learning is wrong because it disagrees with your interpretation of the bible. Everybody's happy

Hi Sam,

St. Augustine is where I would go to reconcile and understand Genesis today as a believer, I think the guy was well beyond his time and he was a fabulous philosopher and scientist, and even better at asking all the questions about the universe, life, love etc etc. that we think are brand new today......he says..

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, ( current understanding ) we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received.

In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress for the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.

This is basic and sound advice imo. It's honest, and open to ridicule, but nonetheless - inspired?? We believe the bible and the testimony of Jesus Christ came out of the Church, not the Church came out of the bible. It's one of the founding principles of my faith.

..and I LIKE science..lol...

I have reconciled myself to the fact that I am a mere 'blip' in the knowledge of our existence, in my current time and place....but I am fascinated by it and how beautiful it is too..:)

Ismhunter

Folks. (is there any women posting on this thread? I feel like im only talking to men for some reason.... inbuilt sexism or keen reading of syntax??...i digress.)

I dont want to get into the thick of this again until i read and listen to fannys recomendations but i thought this might get yere blood and juices boiling for a while.

The word ‘creationism’ is understood by many evangelical Christians to refer to the miraculous and instantaneous creation of life by God. This view is prevalent and has pigeonholed many of us into confusing agency for mechanism. That is, the act of creating becomes needlessly associated with divine intervention. The corollary is that any explanation for life’s diversity that doesn’t appeal to miracles, such as evolution, is assumed to somehow exclude God’s creative agency. Evolution is often described by believers and non-believers alike as ‘godless’.

This conflation is unfortunate because the Bible teaches that even natural processes, such as weather, are under God’s control (e.g., Lev 26:4; Deut 11:14; 1 Sam 12:18; Job 5:10, 37:6; Ps 135:7, 147:8). More to the point, we are each called a creation of God (Ps 139:14) despite the fact that human conception and development proceeds by entirely natural processes. The Bible’s distinction between agency and mechanism therefore allows God to exercise His creativity using the laws of nature He instilled at the beginning of creation. In this sense, creationism doesn’t preclude evolution at all! I liken evolution to the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence, in which God is “in, with, and under” the natural processes that produce biodiversity on Earth.

Happy hunting:)

Beeker

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're left with three options

1. Every scientist in the world is wrong. I say every scientist because there's no such thing as a creation scientist
2. The bible is wrong
3. You have interpreted the bible incorrectly
4. 

There is also option 4. The bible was writen by men, it is not the word of a god and therefore is just a story and a reflection of the understanding of the time!

Fanny Cradock

santing wrote: »

BTW have we now eliminated Poetic for Genesis 1-3?

Certainly not!

Sam Vimes

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Sam,

St. Augustine is where I would go to reconcile and understand Genesis today as a believer, I think the guy was well beyond his time and he was a fabulous philosopher and scientist, and even better at asking all the questions about the universe, life, love etc etc. that we think are brand new today......he says..

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, ( current understanding ) we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received.

In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress for the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.

This is basic and sound advice imo. It's honest, and open to ridicule, but nonetheless - inspired?? We believe the bible and the testimony of Jesus Christ came out of the Church, not the Church came out of the bible. It's one of the founding principles of my faith.

..and I LIKE science..lol...

I have reconciled myself to the fact that I am a mere 'blip' in the knowledge of our existence, in my current time and place....but I am fascinated by it and how beautiful it is too..:)

So you're going with 3 then, he's interpreted it incorrectly?

Beeker wrote: »

[/LIST] There is also option 4. The bible was writen by men, it is not the word of a god and therefore is just a story and a reflection of the understanding of the time!

Ah yeah but they don't like us mentioning that option on this forum

Zombrex

Beeker wrote: »

[/LIST] There is also option 4. The bible was writen by men, it is not the word of a god and therefore is just a story and a reflection of the understanding of the time!

Not on the Christianity forum, where the opposite is taken as already established.

Sam's 3 options echoed a post I was in the process of writing before I saw his (he stole me thoughts!!!)

Most of the posters here, for what ever reason, are certain of the existence of the Christian God.

From that position it seems funny to reject evolution when it is far easier to reject a particular interpretation of Genesis while still believing God exists since a literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't seem to be the justification for God in the first place (which would be quite some circular reasoning)

• You know God exists.
  
• We all know the scientific method works pretty well (hence computers!) and evolution has withstood the onslaught of scientific evaluation. The idea that of evolution not being accurate are ridiculous implausible as it would require nearly every evolutionary biology experiment in the last 50 years to have just been a weird fluke. Creationists like to go on about the "interpretation of the evidence", but science is not about interpretation it is about testing and the observed evidence either matches the predictions of your theory or it doesn't. You can't fudge that. You can certainly lie about it, but the Creationist idea that the worlds biologists are all united in some secret conspiriacy to pervert the truth is equally implausible
  
• Evolution is only one scientific theory that conflicts with literal reading of Genesis, there are hundreds more all of which have again withstood the onslaught of scientific evaluation.
  
• You know God doesn't lie, and thus wouldn't be fudging the science.

So given that it seems an easy choice, the literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Not on the Christianity forum, where the opposite is taken as already established.

Sam's 3 options echoed a post I was in the process of writing before I saw his (he stole me thoughts!!!)

Most of the posters here, for what ever reason, are certain of the existence of the Christian God.

From that position it seems funny to reject evolution when it is far easier to reject a particular interpretation of Genesis while still believing God exists since a literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't seem to be the justification for God in the first place (which would be quite some circular reasoning)

• You know God exists.
  
• We all know the scientific method works pretty well (hence computers!) and evolution has withstood the onslaught of scientific evaluation. The idea that of evolution not being accurate are ridiculous implausible as it would require nearly every evolutionary biology experiment in the last 50 years to have just been a weird fluke. Creationists like to go on about the "interpretation of the evidence", but science is not about interpretation it is about testing and the observed evidence either matches the predictions of your theory or it doesn't. You can't fudge that. You can certainly lie about it, but the Creationist idea that the worlds biologists are all united in some secret conspiriacy to pervert the truth is equally implausible
  
• Evolution is only one scientific theory that conflicts with literal reading of Genesis, there are hundreds more all of which have again withstood the onslaught of scientific evaluation.
  
• You know God doesn't lie, and thus wouldn't be fudging the science.

So given that it seems an easy choice, the literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.

You got it right about God existing, and about Him not lying. Pity about the delusional piece on science. :pac:

Understanding Genesis as historical narrative is the only natural option. Anything else is a forced interpretation and one that makes a nonsense of a defence of any other historical narrative in the Bible.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You got it right about God existing, and about Him not lying. Pity about the delusional piece on science.

Well if you can convince others of that position, more power to you.

I think, though, most people outside of the regulars Creationists on the monster Creationism thread would disagree with the Creationist ideas of what is science and what are scientific standards.

If they also believe that God exists that doesn't leave them with the option then of choosing to believe Genesis literally. No matter how apparently confusing a non-literal interpretation of Genesis may appear to some it is simply not an option for those honest about scientific understanding to consider a literal interpretation. They acknowledge that their limited understanding of how they are to interpret Genesis will be wrong long before 50 years of rigorous scientific evaluation will be.

Interestingly most people don't seem that bothered by that. It seems some what of a Creationist myth then that it is necessary to literally accept Genesis in order to believe in the Christian god.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Understanding Genesis as historical narrative is the only natural option. Anything else is a forced interpretation and one that makes a nonsense of a defence of any other historical narrative in the Bible.

I definately see where you are coming from, as it does 'SEEM' to be presented as a narrative. HOWEVER, you go waaay too far in your position. It condenses the complexity of creation into 2 chapters, and its clear that it doesn't aim to give a detailed account of creation. It is CERTAINLY not unreasonable to see metephor in the language and there is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at it in the light of new knowledge. It is simply unwise to simply say, 'It IS literal, so everything else is wrong'. However, I do agree that simply writing it all off as a simple story for a load of ignorant morons is an untenable position. A wise Christian should be seeking to reconcile their position, not simply write it off as a story or indeed just simply dig their heels in and say, 'no it must be literal'. I don't need faith in God to smell a rat with the theory of evolution. However, I also realise that believing the earth is 6000 years old is not biblical. I see no way out of Noahs flood being literal, but there is DEFINATELY room for metephor in the genesis account of creation. Thats not to say its definately metephor, but there is definately room, and I think you are wrong to simply say its literal or nothing.

Fanny Cradock

wolfsbane wrote: »

You got it right about God existing, and about Him not lying. Pity about the delusional piece on science. :pac:

Understanding Genesis as historical narrative is the only natural option. Anything else is a forced interpretation and one that makes a nonsense of a defence of any other historical narrative in the Bible.

Did you get the chance to listen to that talk I posted a while back?

Quite aside from evolutionary science (we wont go down that route on this thread) there are also other stumbuling blocks to a literal 6-day creation account. It was Origen, I believe, who pointed out that one cant have days before the 4th day because the Sun wasn´t created. For that matter, what is a day? Due to the moon´s influence, the earth´s rotation has dramatically slowed down since it was formed (a 5-hour day) and it continues to slow down. So, for example, this is why we have leap seconds. So I would assume that even the creationist would have to admit that the Genesis creation accounts aren´t to be taken as an exact account.

Either way I don´t actually have a problem with creationists believing what they do. However, while I also understand Genesis as a type of history (albeit a particular type of elevated prose or poetic account), it doesn´t seem fair to state that it can only be understood in one way. Quite aside from the science, I believe there are some excellent reasons for not subscribing to a literal account.

Humm... are we straying?

Turtwig

In light of Fanny's above post, I think this video best illustrates what a day actually is.:)

Kinda off topic, but I think it gives a good illustration of what a day means to us.