[_ Old Earth _] a literal interpretation of genesis and science

[Ignatz]

We can observe the way God interacts with this world not only by studying the scriptures, but by scientifically observing the way nature works. In fact, the scientific method works amazingly well, and I doubt many of us would want to live in a world without it. It would be interesting to see how different Genesis would be if those who wrote it understood evolution and natural selection, yet I believe that the theological meaning would remain unchanged.
The story of Adam and Eve is not a scientific text, it is a theological text. The Bible says that God created all things by his word and design, and created human beings in his image. The language it uses to describe this is not literal, scientific language meant to answer scientific questions, it is pre-scientific and it tries to explain why the world is as it is based on the information available at the time. Genesis was not written with reference to modern scientific methods or questions. I believe that the Adam and Eve story does not need to be a literal account of human origins in order to be useful and meaningful. Nor does it need to be literal account in order to be true. If I say,"My daughter passed away and it broke my heart", is it untrue because it isn’t true literally? of course not.

Genesis is written in language appropriate for the culture, the purpose and the setting. It wasn't written to or by or for modern scientists, yet I am bombarded with accusations that one who doen’t accept the literal truth of Genesis is rejecting the entirity of the bible as truthful. In fact, I see no compelling evidence that the bible concerns itself with changes in alelle frequency at all. Natural selection is the mechanism by which God enables His creation to exist in an ever-changing environment, and this can only be attributable to love.

The Bible isn't Gods last word, it's His first word. He continues to reveal himself to all who seek him, and studying nature is one way to come to a closer understanding of how He works, even if the discoveries point to somthing that is literally different than what was recorded in the pre-scientific language of Genesis.

God could have seen fit to endow anything with an immortal soul. As it turned out, He chose a couple of Hominids wandering the savannahs of eastern Africa. Perhaps these were the first “humansâ€Â; beings with a moral sense; a sense that set them apart from the rest of creation, and a being that for the first time is able to forsee the results of their actions and choose to sin. Our species was young. Similarly, we don’t expect children to understand the concept of right and wrong until they show some degree of understanding consequences.

God is omnipotent, and though all outside forces are subordinate to him, He is bound inwardly by his nature. The universe itself as well as physics/natural law proclaim his fidelity as well as his willingness to let us observe His “fingerprintsâ€Â. God created a rational world, and Science works. At present, the theory of evolution and natural selection is the most rational way we have to explain the changes we see in populations of organisms over time, and we should rejoice in the unfolding of the universe to our understanding. God created a rich and complex world, and I believe that He wants us to explore and learn about it. Christians, (and anyone else, for that matter) should never be afraid of the search for truth. No matter what is discovered or proven, it can only increase the glory of God.

“O Lord how manifold are thy works!
In wsdom thou hast made them all.â€Â

 

[rmills]

We can observe the way God interacts with this world not only by studying the scriptures, but by scientifically observing the way nature works.

I guess that this first statement is the best way to justify Theistic Evolution’s interpretation of God’s word. If one takes that statement as acceptable, one must conclude that Genesis is not literal. Therefore one must conclude that another first statement…

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

…is totally up for ones own scientific interpretation, including anything that follows. This interpretation that follows is of course scientifically based knowledge. I have a full understanding of what God’s word teaches us about that,

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Co 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
1Co 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

This does not say that science is hogwash, it says what it says. This does not say that science is irrelevant to Christians or creation, but it still says what it says. One could argue that Paul was speaking to defilers of the temple (or whatever else) and that this in no way applies to us, but I don’t. Creationists are not necessarily Biblical literalists. Some may be, but I believe that all of God’s word was given to us for this understanding and many other understandings, to teach us the very nature of God. Especially books like Genesis, as it is the foundation for everything we believe, and spans the Bible in connections with the truth of God's word both literally and figurativly.

Question…

After Genesis’s creation account, what else in Genesis is to be taken as specifically relevant to that culture only? What of Exodus? What of Mathew? What of Revelation?

Understand, I do not say these things as an attack, I seriously desire to know the theological and scriptural basis for Theistic Evolution. If I am wrong, I will know when I stand before the throne, but I hope that God will reveal to me the truth before then. So help me out here.

 

[Ignatz]

rmills wrote:

Question…

After Genesis’s creation account, what else in Genesis is to be taken as specifically relevant to that culture only? What of Exodus? What of Mathew? What of Revelation? -

HI rmills!

I was addressing the language used in Genesis, specifically as it relates to the LITERAL story of the creation of Adam and Eve - not to refute the assertion that God created the heavens and the earth (which science can’t do anyway) or the truth of the gospels. in fact, I don't disagree with the theological truth of the Adam and Eve story either. It lays the foundation of our relationship with God and our sinful nature, and the need for reconciliation. I understand that not all creationists view it in a literal context. I am one of them.

As far as the Corinthians quotes go, I see no problem there. I don’t feel that they intend to suggest that the world is closed to our understanding and inscrutable. neither does it suggest that we should never try to learn anything. I think it speaks about mankinds tendency towards Hubris and tells us to trust God. I trust God, and I trust that He isn’t trying to deceive humanity by allowing science to observe the physical world and postulate and test and make discoveries about His creation that He would condemn us for. Science has enabled us to eradicate many illnesses and diseases, for example. - If this isn’t tending to the sick and dying, I don’t know what is.

I don’t believe that Genesis or any other book in the Bible concerns itself with genetics or environmental pressures, etc. Neither does it address the theory of gravitation or quantum field theory or astronomy- that’s not the purpose of the scriptures. This doesn’t mean that the Bible is incomplete or wrong any more than the fact that my book on orchid cultivation has nothing to say about how to steam the perfect bowl of rice. Likewise, I see no scriptural basis for theistic evolution any more than I see a scriptural basis for astrophysics. This doesn’t mean that they therefore cannot be true, It simply doesn’t need to be addressed in the Bible; creation itself proclaims these things, and the beauty of Gods handiwork is evident to anyone who cares to study it. One may, however, find some theological basis for theistic evolution, depending on what theological niche you call home. Natural theology is enjoying somthing of a revival within some groups, which is the search for God through the exersise of reason and the study of nature. This kind of thinking grows more important every year as we discover more about the workings of Gods creation. It helps to minimize the widening gap between science and theology, and actually helps PRESERVE the faith of those who might otherwise reject it due to advances in modern science: There is no need to reject the scriptures, and there is no need to close our eyes and ears to the wealth of information modern scientific methods have uncovered. As I said before, it can only increase the glory of God.

Question:

Is the theological and spiritual truth in the Bible diminished if one does not believe in a literal interpretation of the creation of Adam and Eve?

 

[rmills]

HI rmills!

Hi! I’m a newbie here too. Thanks for letting me poke some questions out there.

I was addressing the language used in Genesis, specifically as it relates to the LITERAL story of the creation of Adam and Eve - not to refute the assertion that God created the heavens and the earth (which science can’t do anyway) or the truth of the gospels. in fact, I don't disagree with the theological truth of the Adam and Eve story either. It lays the foundation of our relationship with God and our sinful nature, and the need for reconciliation. I understand that not all creationists view it in a literal context. I am one of them.

I view the creation account in Genesis as quite literal. If God did not mean to actually say that he created Adam, put him to sleep, removed a rib and from it created Eve because he actually wanted us to create a scientifically based redefinition of this account, then what did he put it there for? To mislead us? Do you see why it is viewed by Creationists as an outright contradiction to God’s word to say that humans started as a mud puddle struck by lightning? God said what he did, but he didn’t mean it? Do you also see why Creationists may question the validity of the theology behind Theistic Evolutionists? The creation account is scientifically sound and fits with the whole of scripture without conflict. God created man, or God created a process that developed itself and divine intervention with a lightning strike allowed natural selection and evolution to take place?

My only issue with Creationists is with the literal seven consecutive 24 hour days of creation. This is an issue of the interpretation of the word Yom, which could mean a period greater than 24 hours. Literal interpretations show that “a day†and “the day†imply something different than 7 consecutive days. I don’t think that anybody who has looked into this disputes the fact that Yom takes on different meanings in this context.

As far as the Corinthians quotes go, I see no problem there. I don’t feel that they intend to suggest that the world is closed to our understanding and inscrutable. neither does it suggest that we should never try to learn anything. I think it speaks about mankinds tendency towards Hubris and tells us to trust God. I trust God, and I trust that He isn’t trying to deceive humanity by allowing science to observe the physical world and postulate and test and make discoveries about His creation that He would condemn us for. Science has enabled us to eradicate many illnesses and diseases, for example. - If this isn’t tending to the sick and dying, I don’t know what is.

I would not be able to say that all the science or medical community is existing contrary to scripture. It could be if it is used to refute the need or existence of a God. Regardless of what the doctor does to repair me, my faith is in Christ Jesus. This is the same as hitting the brake pedal in a car. So I guess that I really don’t understand that argument. How does it apply in this context?

“I trust God, and I trust that He isn’t trying to deceive humanity by allowing science to observe the physical world and postulate and test and make discoveries about His creation that He would condemn us for.â€Â

The Corinthian quotes speak to this directly. Do we rely on man’s wisdom, or do we rely on God’s? God’s wisdom is of course faith based, developed through the study of scripture, and with a little help from the Holy Spirit, becomes alive and real. Man’s wisdom is of course based on man. These quotes from Corinthians say specifically that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

I think it speaks about mankinds tendency towards Hubris and tells us to trust God.

Is that a literal translation? I think it speaks to you and I a plethora of things that the writer never imagined it would, but God has it there so that it will speak to a plethora of things.

I don’t believe that Genesis or any other book in the Bible concerns itself with genetics or environmental pressures, etc. Neither does it address the theory of gravitation or quantum field theory or astronomy- that’s not the purpose of the scriptures. This doesn’t mean that the Bible is incomplete or wrong any more than the fact that my book on orchid cultivation has nothing to say about how to steam the perfect bowl of rice. Likewise, I see no scriptural basis for theistic evolution any more than I see a scriptural basis for astrophysics.

Couldn’t agree more.

This doesn’t mean that they therefore cannot be true, It simply doesn’t need to be addressed in the Bible; creation itself proclaims these things, and the beauty of Gods handiwork is evident to anyone who cares to study it. One may, however, find some theological basis for theistic evolution, depending on what theological niche you call home. Natural theology is enjoying somthing of a revival within some groups, which is the search for God through the exersise of reason and the study of nature. This kind of thinking grows more important every year as we discover more about the workings of Gods creation. It helps to minimize the widening gap between science and theology, and actually helps PRESERVE the faith of those who might otherwise reject it due to advances in modern science: There is no need to reject the scriptures, and there is no need to close our eyes and ears to the wealth of information modern scientific methods have uncovered. As I said before, it can only increase the glory of God.

Natural Theology? Sorry, don’t know that term from fly. What Theological niche do you call home?

Question:

Is the theological and spiritual truth in the Bible diminished if one does not believe in a literal interpretation of the creation of Adam and Eve?

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
Job 38:9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
Job 38:10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
Job 38:12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
Job 38:14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
Job 38:15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
Job 38:16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
Job 38:17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
Job 38:18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
Job 38:20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
Job 38:21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
Job 38:23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
Job 38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
Job 38:26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
Job 38:27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
Job 38:28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
Job 38:29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
Job 38:30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
Job 38:32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
Job 38:33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
Job 38:34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?
Job 38:36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
Job 38:37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
Job 38:38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?
Job 38:39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
Job 38:40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
Job 38:41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.
Job 39:1 Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
Job 39:2 Canst thou number the months that they fulfil? or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
Job 39:3 They bow themselves, they bring forth their young ones, they cast out their sorrows.
Job 39:4 Their young ones are in good liking, they grow up with corn; they go forth, and return not unto them.
Job 39:5 Who hath sent out the wild ass free? or who hath loosed the bands of the wild ass?
Job 39:6 Whose house I have made the wilderness, and the barren land his dwellings.
Job 39:7 He scorneth the multitude of the city, neither regardeth he the crying of the driver.
Job 39:8 The range of the mountains is his pasture, and he searcheth after every green thing.
Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Job 39:11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
Job 39:12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
Job 39:13 Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?
Job 39:14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
Job 39:15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.
Job 39:16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear;
Job 39:17 Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.
Job 39:18 What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and his rider.
Job 39:19 Hast thou given the horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder?
Job 39:20 Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible.
Job 39:21 He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength: he goeth on to meet the armed men.
Job 39:22 He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither turneth he back from the sword.
Job 39:23 The quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield.
Job 39:24 He swalloweth the ground with fierceness and rage: neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet.
Job 39:25 He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting.
Job 39:26 Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?
Job 39:27 Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high?
Job 39:28 She dwelleth and abideth on the rock, upon the crag of the rock, and the strong place.
Job 39:29 From thence she seeketh the prey, and her eyes behold afar off.
Job 39:30 Her young ones also suck up blood: and where the slain are, there is she.
Job 40:1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
Job 40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
Job 40:3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
Job 40:4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.

 

[Quath]

I don't see how a literal creation could be valid. For example on the second day, God "made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." So here is God separating rain from the oceans. The ancient view was that there is a dome like object over us that held the treasuries of hail snow and rain. God would open a window in this firmament to let the rain fall down.

Now we know that water can be a vapor and that is how water gets into the air. So the ideas of a firmament or storing hail and snow on a dome are not scientific. But as a metaphor, it works.

Quath

 

[Ignatz]

Howdy!

I think that the book of Job can probably be best described as a vindication of God’s justice in the light of human suffering, and it says that nobody should expect to understand God's reasons for making the righteous suffer. the questions you quoted display the wonder and power of His creation: The earth, the sea, the stars, etc. Various members of the animal kingdom: the raven, the wild ox refusing to be harnessed, the ostrich leaving her eggs in the sand, the horse, etc. God repeatedly contrasts His wisdom and knowledge with Job's ignorance, but this doesn’t mean that we don’t know any more about the world than Job did; we know lots more. take the ostrich quote, for example:

... it leaves its eggs to the earth,
and lets them be warmed on the ground,
forgetting that a foot may crush them,
and that a wild animal may trample them.
It deals cruelly with its young, as if they were not its own;
though its labor should be in vain, yet it has no fear;
because God has made it forget wisdom,
and given it no share in understanding. [39:13-17]

I don’t think that the author understood that the ostrich runs from its nest to lead predators away from its young, but thats allright. Gods questions to Job celebrate the wisdom that created the world, and of the order it imposes on nature: Everything is in its proper place, playing its assigned role in the great scheme of things.

The main point made by God is that Job doesn't know enough to call God into account. I don’t question Gods reasons for having let Genesis be written in pre-scientific language. If He chose to speak in haiku or iambic pentameter It would still be true by virtue of God saying it. Also, it makes sense. He speaks in a perfectly reasonable way within the historical/linguistic context familiar to the authors. How else could he be understood? Nobody would have known what amino acids or chromosomes were. I suppose God could have revealed this knowledge to the authors, but he didn’t. God doesn’t seem to care much for revealing things of a non-spiritual nature, perhaps because these things are not of primary importance for a relationship with God. He does, however, endow us with the cognitive capacity to discover these things ourselves. (My earlier comment about medical science was simply to illustrate how the exersise of reason and the scientific method has helped relieve suffering, somthing He wants us to do, not to attack Gods wisdom.- just an example.)

God didn’t explain Himself to Job, and He isn’t going to explain Himself to us either, but I don’t think it suggests that an honest search for the understanding of the physical processes that allow life to exist is foolish or that it questions Gods wisdom, simply because that understanding is not sufficient for salvation. Conversly, science does not suggest that we can’t or shouldn’t trust God’s wisdom. It glorifies it. Anybody who has ever struggled with a complex idea or problem knows of the exaltant rush that comes with scientific/spiritual/artistic revelation. Theologins and artists have been doing this longer than scientists have. I submit that we trust that Gods wisdom to let the cosmos be open to our understanding is not an attempt to mislead us, just as He didn’t attemp to confuse generations past with a modern, scientific description of natural processes.

Natural theology, or “process theology†(my present niche, I’m always searching), is often identified with things of theological importance which can be known independently of all that is believed by a particular group. In other words, natural theology is everything that can be known relative to matters of human concern by using Gods gift of reason. some people feel more comfortable with it than others, but I feel that it reconciles aspects of the scriptures with that which God has chosen to reveal to us in nature; It doesn’t contradict them, even if it means that we reject a literal reading of some aspects of the Bible-*(Note that I didn’t claim that we should therfore reject the spiritual truth of those aspects)- The theological meaning and spiritual importance remains intact. (Unless, of course, ones particular interpretation demands that we read the creation story as literal and close our eyes to the myriad ways that God reveals himself and his creation to us in our study of natural phenomena).

Those who believe faith is a gift from God that is in no way dependent upon any spiritual or intellectual openness toward faith on the part of humanity may fear that the use of reason is pointless or worse. In Biblical and Christian history, however, I find little justification for the view that God acts in such radical independence of intellectual and cultural history;

If God was inspiring scriptural writings today, I do not doubt that He would allow the use of modern language and literary devices that would facilitate our understanding, for how else could we understand Him?
Again, this doesn’t diminish the truth of the scriptures, and it doesn’t raise the wisdom of humanity above the wisdom of God, since in His wisdom He allows the cosmos to be open to our understanding.

I imagine that when we stand before the throne, God will recognize our sincere efforts to come to a closer understanding of Him, and make corrections as needed.
Now THAT will be a revelation.

Ignatz

 

[Ignatz]

Quath wrote:

Now we know that water can be a vapor and that is how water gets into the air. So the ideas of a firmament or storing hail and snow on a dome are not scientific. But as a metaphor, it works.

Hiya Quath!

I agree. The fact that most of us no longer take this literally doesn't diminish the truth that God alone is responsible for natural phenomena. I don't believe that God concerned himself with insuring that he provided us with a scientifically accurate understanding of natural processes. The Bible isn't a textbook, nor is it an encyclopedia. To force the text into the framework of modern cosmology/biology is a misuse of the text.

Ignatz

 

[rmills]

The main point made by God is that Job doesn't know enough to call God into account. ...

God didn’t explain Himself to Job, and He isn’t going to explain Himself to us either, ...

...In other words, natural theology is everything that can be known relative to matters of human concern by using Gods gift of reason.

Wow. Ignatz, these statements are exactly the point I am attempting to make. The point that God made to Job was clear to both of us. I say that this point applies to us as well, and in this context no less, but it sounds to me like you are contextualizing this point as if it applies to Job only. This is a literal interpretation in itself!

I believe that God gave us this gift of reason to choose him. But is this gift of reason possibly liberating us to define things he chose not to show us? Are we holding God accountable to theories of Natural Selection and Evolution, even after he tells us in his word that we will not know? This is where it all gets fuzzy for me. I believe in God's account of creation, but the belief that is being proposed says that this account of creation is to be defined by other means, and interpreted by other means. I hear the argument over and over that Evolution does not contradict the Genesis account, but I cannot see how this is the case when not one word of the Theistic Evolution proposal confirms one word in the creation account.

Ignatz, I will not call your salvation into question because I do not believe that Theistic Evolution in itself is a faith essential issue. But what I do believe, once again, is that this puts a whole different spin on how one takes scripture. It is either all figurative and limited to cultural relevance or it is all for you, given by God to guide you into a fullfilling relationship with him.

Genesis is written in language appropriate for the culture, the purpose and the setting. It wasn't written to or by or for modern scientists, yet I am bombarded with accusations that one who doen’t accept the literal truth of Genesis is rejecting the entirity of the bible as truthful.

Going back to that statement, and back to a previous question, what does this mean in regards to the rest of Genesis and how it is interpreted? Exodus? Leviticus? And so on?

The Bible isn't Gods last word, it's His first word.

That statement confuses me. Is this to say that the Bible can continue to be written? Is this to say that the Bible is insufficiant as an understanding? What does this say? What I fear it says is that we may conclude what we want to about God's word, and maybe it is all right because, and after all, the Bible is not a text book.

Man explaining God by any means (scientifically or otherwise) seems to me to be futility at it's best at times. Job learned this, but I just dont know if we have.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

 

[Ignatz]

Howdy rmills!

I haven’t mentioned this yet, but I am really enjoying this conversaton. your comments and questions are keeping me on my toes and I appreciate the time you’re taking to indulge me.

rmills wrote:

it sounds to me like you are contextualizing this point as if it applies to Job only. This is a literal interpretation in itself!

(*smile*-then Ignatz raises his fists to the heavens and lets out an unhinged shriek-â€ÂRMIIIIILLS!â€Â)

Yes, I guess I was, although I do agree that it applies to us as well. I even went on to say:

Ignatz wrote:

I don’t question Gods reasons for having let Genesis be written in pre-scientific language. If He chose to speak in haiku or iambic pentameter It would still be true by virtue of God saying it. Also, it makes sense. He speaks in a perfectly reasonable way within the historical/linguistic context familiar to the authors. How else could he be understood?

I suppose one could argue that any attempt to view Genesis through a particular literary framework is damaging the text, but the fact is that ANY text is written within a particular framework, be it the parables of Jesus or the poetry of Psalms.

To quote myself again:
"My daughter passed away and it broke my heart".
My heart did not “literally†break; it’s working fine, but the fact that this is not literally true doesn’t diminish its truth.

rmills wrote:

is this gift of reason possibly liberating us to define things he chose not to show us? Are we holding God accountable to theories of Natural Selection and Evolution, even after he tells us in his word that we will not know?

God chose not to reveal all kinds of things to the author/s of Genesis. However, I don’t believe that this means that divine revelation is the only way God expects us to learn anything, nor do I think that because we must struggle within the confines of reason and move forward with fits and starts in the process of discovery, that this means that knowledge of these things is forbidden or that we cannot ever know them. I don’t see that God is telling us that we will never understand the method of speciation, or even the physics/chemistry that descibes the natural processes by which God created life in the first place, but simply that we do not have the wisdom of God. Even a fully coherent and factual account of abiogenesis and evolution/natural selection will not change that. The understanding of ANY phenomena will not change that.

rmills wrote:

the belief that is being proposed says that this account of creation is to be defined by other means, and interpreted by other means.

Only if one insists on a literal view of Genesis, which, incidently, requires us to redefine the prescientific language of Gods word and view it in a literal context.
Here’s another non-literal example:
Job 6:4 Almighty God has shot me with arrows, and their poison spreads through my body. God has lined up his terrors against me.
Job isn’t saying that God “literally†shot him with arrows, there is no “literal poison. I was tired after work last night and rushed home. There, exhausted, I fell asleep on the couch. If I say: “I flew home and I was so dead that I crashed in the couch.†Is that a literal description of what happened? No. Is it true? Yes. The truth is not restricted to texts that can only be interpreted literally.

rmills wrote:

I hear the argument over and over that Evolution does not contradict the Genesis account, but I cannot see how this is the case when not one word of the Theistic Evolution proposal confirms one word in the creation account.

I guess you could say that it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Genesis/creation account, but I don’t understand why this is such a point of contention for many Christians. Why can’t Gods inspiration be just as truthfully described in non-literal language?

rmills wrote:

It is either all figurative and limited to cultural relevance or it is all for you, given by God to guide you into a fullfilling relationship with him.

This is like saying that Shakespeare, because he wrote figuratively in a different culture and time, that his writing has no relevance today. His work reveals aspects of the human condition in a beautiful and poetic way. Simply because somthing is written figuratively doesn’t mean that it has no truth or that its relevance is limited to a particular culture. Certainly, the Bible continues to be relevant to all Christians as the inspired word of God, but not because all of it is literally accurate. Again, allegory/metaphore/simile etc. does not equal false.

rmills wrote:

Ignatz wrote:
Genesis is written in language appropriate for the culture, the purpose and the setting. It wasn't written to or by or for modern scientists, yet I am bombarded with accusations that one who doen’t accept the literal truth of Genesis is rejecting the entirity of the bible as truthful.

rmills wrote:
Going back to that statement, and back to a previous question, what does this mean in regards to the rest of Genesis and how it is interpreted? Exodus? Leviticus? And so on?

I should have specified The creation account in that statement. Certainly there are non-figurative, literal historical references relating to family lineages, instructions from God as to how to worship Him and how to conduct daily life as well as other historical events. I presume that you are implying that I reject the possibility that ANY verse in the Bible is literal. I do not. In fact, lots of it is literal. That doesn’t mean that all of it is or that the non-literal parts are not true because thay are not literal.

rmills wrote:

Is this to say that the Bible can continue to be written? Is this to say that the Bible is insufficiant as an understanding? What does this say?

Insufficient for an understanding of what? By saying that the Bible was Gods first word and not his last, I simply meant that the Bible is the first instance of God revealing himself and his plan for us, and that He continues to speak and reveal Himself to us if we search for Him. The Bible may be all that we NEED to have a relationship with God, but for an understanding of the physical mechanics that animate the universe, I would have to say yes, the Bible is insufficient for an understanding of these.

rmills wrote:

..after all, the Bible is not a text book.

I agree.

rmills wrote:

Man explaining God by any means (scientifically or otherwise) seems to me to be futility at it's best at times. Job learned this, but I just dont know if we have.

I agree that we cannot explain God. Our species has searched for proof since time immemorial, but I don’t believe that examining the physical processes by which life exists in its many forms is tantamount to explaining God any more than medical science threatens Gods sovereignity over life and death, or that physics challenges the wisdom of the One who created the fabric of being just because we have an understanding of atomic structure. It simply tries to explain particular phenomena, and observe the way God interacts with His creation at the genetic level.

 

[rmills]

Ignatz wrote:

I haven’t mentioned this yet, but I am really enjoying this conversaton. your comments and questions are keeping me on my toes and I appreciate the time you’re taking to indulge me.

Seriuosly, I am having as much fun as I ever could so far with the conversations here at 123, (save the Islam conversations I have read). I really do believe that using forums like this helps us to understand what we claim to believe. This is what I do as a pastor! I take everything and compare it to God's word, all in an effort to not just know what to believe but to understand why I and others believe it. There are some incredible posters here, and this looks like a place I will have no problem setteling into.

Your post gives a few things to think about. I guess the first question I ask myself is, to what degree do we call something figurative? The examples you use are not regestering with me. A broken heart is a term we use to describe emotional pain. I'm ok with that, and would never really question the meaning. Being shot with arrows of poison could be literal and could be figurative, but due to the context, we know that this was figurative.

So if I say that Evolution contradicts Genesis, I say that this is a figurative and literal contradiction, and come to this conclusion because of the way that we (Creationist and Theistic Evolutionist) interpret these scriptures.

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

G2315

theopneustos
theh-op'-nyoo-stos
From G2316 and a presumed derivative of G4154; divinely breathed in: - given by inspiration of God.

Ignatz wrote:

The Bible may be all that we NEED to have a relationship with God, but for an understanding of the physical mechanics that animate the universe, I would have to say yes, the Bible is insufficient for an understanding of these.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Now the Bible does not help us pass our drivers education course with wisdom concerning how to make a left turn, but this is as we both agree not there because God does not view this as a faith essential knowledge. When it comes to our relationship with God, we learn of him by eating (figurativly ) the word of God. The word of God tells us that there is a creation account, given by inspiration of God, and that this is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and done so that we may have perfection through the word and be equiped to do God's good works as outlined in his word.

rmills wrote

..after all, the Bible is not a text book.

and I mean that sarcastically. Though it does not teach us how to turn left, it teaches us to obey the laws given by man concerning driving.

Ignatz wrote:

It simply tries to explain particular phenomena, and observe the way God interacts with His creation at the genetic level.

I still dont believe that there is anything wrong with "explaining particular phenomena", but there is something wrong if it does not find confirmation or basis to do so in God's word. If I decide that it is better to turn left with no blinker, and blame my actions to the driving unstructor on God and his word, I stand in absolute contradiction to God's word, clearly!

Phi 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Phi 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

 

[Ignatz]

I really do believe that using forums like this helps us to understand what we claim to believe.

Thats a good point. - I like your term: “Claim to believeâ€Â. I know that in my own life, I’ve “claimed†to believe all kinds of things, only to dicover that perhaps I actually don’t upon closer inspection. I think these forums are usefull too.
I didn’t know you were a pastor! what denomination?

to what degree do we call something figurative?

An important question. I suppose somthing is figurative if it is not literally true. As I look back at our posts, It occurs to me that a definition of “Truth†is important too, though we both agree that there are literal truths as well as figurative truths. when it comes to things like evolution/natural selection, There is physical evidence that these things have occured and continue to occur. The evidence is peer reviewed and any claims are taken very seriously. the literal truth of discovery needn't contradict the figurative truth of the scriptures. I read recently that the early Christians didn't read the creation account literally. Is that true?

The word of God tells us that there is a creation account, given by inspiration of God, and that this is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and done so that we may have perfection through the word and be equiped to do God's good works as outlined in his word.

I understand that, but I guess I stll don’t see why the physical evidence that evolution and natural selection occur is rejected by many Christians, or even, in some cases, dismissed as some kind of grand Atheist conspiracy. If I were a scientist, and I came across evidence that the universe was created literally as it is stated in Genesis, I would absolutely rethink my position and claim my spot in the ranks of Newton and Einstein.

I still dont believe that there is anything wrong with "explaining particular phenomena", but there is something wrong if it does not find confirmation or basis to do so in God's word.

My personal, layman interests lay in biology and genetics and cosmology. I find them to be fascinating, beautiful things that truly make me feel closer to God and bring Him directly into my realm of physical experience. This is true of many professional scientists as well. I understand that there are those that feel science and other modern methods challenge Christianity somehow, but I never did. I’m not a biblical scholar by any means- I’m curious: are there any other sciences/disciplines/theories that you feel the Bible warns us against or tells us not to pursue? Is there such a thing as specifically forbidden knowledge?

 

[rmills]

Thats a good point. - I like your term: “Claim to believeâ€Â. I know that in my own life, I’ve “claimed†to believe all kinds of things, only to dicover that perhaps I actually don’t upon closer inspection. I think these forums are usefull too.
I didn’t know you were a pastor! what denomination?

Hey, I am officially a youth pastor but am slowly moving towards being a senior pastor. I am with Calvary Chapel which is a non-denominational fellowship throughout the world. I will probably continue to be in the future, and hope to start my own Calvary in Boulder Colorado some day. Calvary Chapel is usually distinguished by its word by word, chapter by chapter study style. We typically start at the beginning of a book and study it all the way through. I have recently finished a 7 year study on Genesis, which made the foundation for my interest in Theological Evolution. If 7 years seems long for one book, I would say that it was not nearly long enough for me. There is so much that can be taken from Genesis that applies literally and figuratively throughout the Bible. It is hard to even know where to begin in a study like that which is why we start at one end and work to the other. My youth group is currently studying Acts, and has been for about a year now. We have made it to Chapter 7!

An important question. I suppose somthing is figurative if it is not literally true. As I look back at our posts, It occurs to me that a definition of “Truth†is important too, though we both agree that there are literal truths as well as figurative truths. when it comes to things like evolution/natural selection, There is physical evidence that these things have occured and continue to occur. The evidence is peer reviewed and any claims are taken very seriously. the literal truth of discovery needn't contradict the figurative truth of the scriptures. I read recently that the early Christians didn't read the creation account literally. Is that true?

I do not know if Creation was not taken literally by early Christians, but I guess that “early Christians†could be quite an unspecified length of time. As far as evidence to support evolution/natural selection is concerned, I have seen an equally huge amount of evidence that points to the contrary. This of course is a different discussion but science, and scientists from my own family no less have shown me various aspects of the Genesis creation account that agree with scientifically observed facts.

We as Christians have discovered truths that cannot be seen scientifically, that cannot be classified scientifically, and cannot be explained scientifically, and thus we enter into the equation the element of absolute truth based on faith. The world views this to be a weak justification or liberation for fables and folklore, but we have found the justification and liberation through our own lives in that the word of God has become alive to us in ways that transcend man’s wisdom and knowledge.

I understand that, but I guess I stll don’t see why the physical evidence that evolution and natural selection occur is rejected by many Christians, or even, in some cases, dismissed as some kind of grand Atheist conspiracy. If I were a scientist, and I came across evidence that the universe was created literally as it is stated in Genesis, I would absolutely rethink my position and claim my spot in the ranks of Newton and Einstein.

I do not know that I would label evolution or natural selection as a grand conspiracy, but it is the product of man’s understanding at its best. We see throughout scripture that God transcends man’s understanding in ways that we probably will not be able to grasp until we stand before God. This understanding of God is quite simply something that science will not be able to explain effectively due to the fact that we have no tangible frame of reference to base our understandings on aside from God’s word. Science cannot accept God’s word because it is not written as scientific observation. Jesus himself was the categorical and diametrical opposition to man’s way of thinking, and was eventually killed for that very reason.

To say, “I would absolutely rethink my position and claim my spot in the ranks of Newton and Einstein.†is something that every believer can do. If you believe that Jesus is God, then you can say that the very nature of God was displayed before humanity for around a period of thirty years. Jesus spoke in parables, performed miracles, and displayed a compassion that the content of which effectively took humanity into a quantum leap of understanding for those that choose to accept it. This in my mind is the single most important historical event that shaped humanity as we know it today! Jesus shattered the understandings of the wise, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and effectively gave it to children (or the child like mind) who by their very nature of simple-mindedness had not achieved a level of man’s understanding that stood in opposition to God’s.

My personal, layman interests lay in biology and genetics and cosmology. I find them to be fascinating, beautiful things that truly make me feel closer to God and bring Him directly into my realm of physical experience. This is true of many professional scientists as well. I understand that there are those that feel science and other modern methods challenge Christianity somehow, but I never did. I’m not a biblical scholar by any means- I’m curious: are there any other sciences/disciplines/theories that you feel the Bible warns us against or tells us not to pursue? Is there such a thing as specifically forbidden knowledge?

The tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life was placed before man.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The choice that humanity is left with on a perpetual basis is knowledge of good and evil or life. We see God allow the first act of life changing choice which is required for God to be God. The first decision was for something greater than life, or so they thought.

Forbidden knowledge does exist, such as common examples in the word like sex before marriage. Does that mean that humanity will not achieve that knowledge? Obviously not, but the real question is rather should they have obtained it? I don’t know that I would peg science as forbidden knowledge, but I would gladly peg it as man’s understanding, which in light of God’s understanding is absolute futility. I understand that this is a strong statement, but I also believe that scripture as a whole supports this.

This is tough stuff for even me. But we also have to consider that we are thinking and speaking in realms that even the greatest minds cannot achieve. :o

 

[bob]

Hiya Quath!
I agree. The fact that most of us no longer take this literally doesn't diminish the truth that God alone is responsible for natural phenomena.

It's wording like this that make me stare in awe at my monitor. Is it so difficult for believers to understand that what they have can only be called "truth" if it can be proven so? Otherwise, the word "truth" has no meaning. Wouldn't it be more prudent to say; "...doesn't diminish my belief that God alone is responsible for natural phenomena." I understand that a belief can be so strong that we actually consider it a truth. But in reality, it is still only a belief. I guess it's very difficult for a believer because doubts over the validity of the claims of the bible are to be suppressed. Doubt can even be a sin;
James 1:5-7
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord.
I guess by saying something is "truth" it helps suppress any doubts that might arise, (not accusing you of having doubts). But just by saying something is truth does not make it truth. In my view, (which on this forum carries no weight at all) saying something is truth when it is not proven to be truth, diminishes the integrity of the claimant...in my view.

 

[Ignatz]

It's wording like this that make me stare in awe at my monitor. Is it so difficult for believers to understand that what they have can only be called "truth" if it can be proven so? Otherwise, the word "truth" has no meaning.

Sorry Quath - I’m perfectly happy to change that to “..does not change ‘my belief’...â€Â, I agree that words like “Truth†and “Proof†and “Evidence†get thrown around alot in these forums, and that personal conviction does not equal “Truthâ€Â. Thats kind of a peeve of mine as well. I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility that God doesn’t exist, though I have fait that He does, and I think that there are true things that cannot be “provenâ€Â.

 

[Quath]

Sorry Quath .

It was Bob. Didn't want any confusion.

Quath

 

[bob]

It's wording like this that make me stare in awe at my monitor. Is it so difficult for believers to understand that what they have can only be called "truth" if it can be proven so? Otherwise, the word "truth" has no meaning.

Sorry Quath - I’m perfectly happy to change that to “..does not change ‘my belief’...â€Â, I agree that words like “Truth†and “Proof†and “Evidence†get thrown around alot in these forums, and that personal conviction does not equal “Truthâ€Â. Thats kind of a peeve of mine as well. I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility that God doesn’t exist, though I have faith that He does, and I think that there are true things that cannot be “provenâ€Â.

I could hug you. It is so refreshing to here a believer say that they are at least willing to accept the possibility that they may be wrong. Believe it or not Ignatz, I hope I am wrong. I don't believe there is an afterlife, but I hope I am wrong. Of course, I'm not to keen on the idea of hell. An eternity of torment sure would put a stop to my watching Seinfeld reruns.

 

[Ignatz]

I meant "sorry bob"-Thanks, Quath.

An eternity of torment sure would put a stop to my watching Seinfeld reruns.

I know what you mean. Believe it or not, I didn't even discover "Seinfeld" or "Everybody loves Raymond" until they were in syndication, myself. I have alot of catching up to do.

I kind of feel like I get it from both sides, particularly when discussing the nature of God and the way He may or may not be evident in nature, or, in the case of non-believers, the very existence of God. Somthing interesting to ponder, and important to define, I think, (though it no doubt belongs in another forum), is what someone means when they use the word "God". No doubt people jealously defend their definition of the word, and it holds a profound and specific meaning for that person. Even members of the same religion may have different meanings. I see this as a natural consequence of trying to pin down a definition to a word that describes an infinitely trancsendent being/principle, and I suppose I'm no different.

There's a good book that was released in 1989 through the "New Science Library - Shambala Publications Inc." called "Science and Creation", by a guy named John Polkinghorne. He is/was Dean and Chaplain of Trinity Hall, at Cambridge, is a Fellow of the Royal Society and former Professor of Mathamatical Physics at Cambridge University. He taught physics for many years and then became an Anglican priest. A Fascinating (but HEAVY) read.

 

[Ignatz]

Hiya rmills-(and anyone else who might be watching. )
sorry for my lapse..I kinda got wrapped up in some other forums lately.

I have recently finished a 7 year study on Genesis, which made the foundation for my interest in Theological Evolution.

-LOOOVING it. I suppose one could spend a lifetime studying ANY of the books. You say "...My interest in theological evolution". Does that mean that you believe in theistic evolution, or that you are simply interested/curious about it?

science, and scientists from my own family no less have shown me various aspects of the Genesis creation account that agree with scientifically observed facts.

What kinds of examples? I read somewhere, in a book by Freeman Dyson, a physicist, called "Infinite in All Directions", that spoke of the early constituents of life needing a "body"; somthing to attatch to, and that free floating amino acids or whatever else, attatched themselves to clay molecules or silica, (I don't recall), thus laying the groundwork for the first cells, which exist today, hidden away, as the mitichondria in every cell of all living bodies. This sounds similar to the claim that God made Adam out of the dust/earth/mud. Just interesting, that's all.

I don’t know that I would peg science as forbidden knowledge, but I would gladly peg it as man’s understanding, which in light of God’s understanding is absolute futility.

I agree that our understanding is nowhere near Gods' understanding, but, for myself, (and I assume many scientists as well), scientific discovery makes His work in the natural world a very real and profound source of delight and revelation. Of course, there are those who may use this as "proof "of the non-existence of God, at worst, or perhaps as evidence that God is no longer involved with His creation, but people have used examples like the state of the world/war/suffering etc. to back this opinion, as well as the former, for centuries while never invoking science at all (I blame humankinds' sinful nature/imperfection, not God). If God is infinite and transcendent, and consistent with his nature, and has woven himself into the very fabric of "being" itself, how can we seperate the workings of nature/physics/whatever with God Himself in the physical world? can't the workings of nature testify to his wisdom and creativity and, certainly, His fidelity? (the immutable laws of physics, for example, that allow life to exist).

To sum up, I'm willing to accept the possibility that modern theories of abiogenesis/evolution/natural selection may be incorrect, but if you say that:

...science, and scientists from my own family no less have shown me various aspects of the Genesis creation account that agree with scientifically observed facts.

Doesn't that mean that you are willing to accept the possibility that science CAN provide evidence for that which none of us were around to see firsthand? And that Science CAN answer questions about the origins of life and our species?

-Ignatz

 

[rmills]

Ignatz,

Did I loose ya on that post back there?

 

[Guest]

:B-fly: I hope these websites can provide more information for those
who are interested in knowing more.
http://www.douknow.net/ev_UnmaskingTheF ... lution.htm
http://www.proving-it.com/ex-atheist.htm

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/285/Q1/