[_ Old Earth _] Evidence for Creationism?

[Packrat]

Okay, so it's been more than a week since my last post. What do we, as Christians, do with such information? Do we still take the story as literal, when evidence is against it, or do we see it as an analogous story, based upon a local event, but made global to make some sort of conclusion about how God can hate sin so much, an indictment on people who aren't living according to God, perhaps even a warning?

I've heard some pretty interesting interpretations in my attempt to understand the Creation account. My current view is that the account of Creation is quite literal but also employs a play on words to tell a more intricate and involving tale through the use of simpler concepts.

The word for the Serpent, for example, is nachash in Hebrew. In Numbers, as I remember, God ordered Moses to make a saraph. In doing so, Moses made a nachash of brass. Seraphim (plural of saraph) are the six-winged angelic beings spoken of in Isaiah. Satan is an angelic being. These two words - saraph and nachash - are nearly interchangable. Saraph, when used to refer to a snake, refers to a venomous snake. Nachash merely refers to a snake. The reason I think that saraph is also used for the angelic beings is because of a Hebrew word or root word (if my memory serves correct) similar to that of saraph which means "to burn," and these angels were burning bright with light I think. The saraph used to refer to a snake is used as such because, I think, the venom of the poisonous serpent has a burning sensation.

Also of interest is the nature of the Serpent or Nachash in Genesis. Apparently this serpent used to travel in some other way than simply crawling on his belly before he was cursed (maybe walking or even flying). After all, imposing this debilitated mobility upon the nachash apparently indicates that originally the debilitation was not there. Otherwise there would be no need to impose it. So do I believe in a literal account? Yes. Do I believe that the walking, talking, deceiving nachash was our modern-day garden-variety snake? No.

 

[Orion]

Packrat, I'm not sure how what you said answers the problem I pointed out in the "world wide flood" time period.

However, I have issues with the "serpent story and Eve" as being absolutely literal. If the "serpent" was evil, then one would think that it wouldn't have been allowed in the "perfect garden", because it would no longer BE "perfect" anymore the second this creature entered it.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

However, I have issues with the "serpent story and Eve" as being absolutely literal.

:o

If the "serpent" was evil, then one would think that it wouldn't have been allowed in the "perfect garden", because it would no longer BE "perfect" anymore the second this creature entered it.

Just my thoughts.

Perhaps we are witnessing the fall of this creature, and as he rebels against God, he grabs hold of man. Scripture also tells us that when God created the world, He saw that it was good. So ~ at that point, it WAS good.

The decision to take over the world and put himself on the throne of God, must have begun with getting Adam and Eve to turn from God and follow his lies.

 

[Orion]

Or, perhaps, "the serpent" was a product of the human mind emerging, believing that they deserved everything. . . . . perhaps "the serpent" is the human failing of "selfishness" in disguise. :-?

 

[Packrat]

Packrat, I'm not sure how what you said answers the problem I pointed out in the "world wide flood" time period.

However, I have issues with the "serpent story and Eve" as being absolutely literal. If the "serpent" was evil, then one would think that it wouldn't have been allowed in the "perfect garden", because it would no longer BE "perfect" anymore the second this creature entered it.

Just my thoughts.

I think your idea of Satan (if that is who you believe the Serpent is) not being allowed near God or a holy place is an incorrect notion. Check out Job again. Satan came before God, falsely accusing Job. If God allowed Satan to temporarily visit him, then why wouldn't he allow Satan into the Garden which was in a place called Eden on the planet Earth? Also check out the story about Satan trying to tempt Jesus to sin. Jesus in my opinion is God, so Satan was allowed near God again. And if God is omnipresent, then how can Satan ever escape beyond his presence? If Satan is in the presence of the Holy Divine every single moment of his life, then why would it matter where he was at the time - whether it be in Heaven or on Earth?

I tend to think that the Garden of Eden account does record Satan's fall though - if not completely then at least in part.

 

[Packrat]

However, I have issues with the "serpent story and Eve" as being absolutely literal.

:o

If the "serpent" was evil, then one would think that it wouldn't have been allowed in the "perfect garden", because it would no longer BE "perfect" anymore the second this creature entered it.

Just my thoughts.

Perhaps we are witnessing the fall of this creature, and as he rebels against God, he grabs hold of man. Scripture also tells us that when God created the world, He saw that it was good. So ~ at that point, it WAS good.

The decision to take over the world and put himself on the throne of God, must have begun with getting Adam and Eve to turn from God and follow his lies.

A Hebrew version of the text I read not too long ago used the word "functional" wherever the English used the word "good," and wherever the English used the word "evil," the word "dysfunctional" was used. So knowing good and evil is knowing what is functional and what is not functional - or basically knowing how things work. Knowing both good and evil is a mechanical enlightenment as well as a theological and philosophical one in my opinion. That being said, the circle of life and death is certainly a functional one if regulated well so that no varieties of animals or life forms become extinct so as to extinguish a part of the creation.

I believe that God created the universe with death from the beginning. God gave to all creatures and people the plants as food. Don't you know that in order for plants to give our bodies nourishment they must die? I believe that this is a very functional process, and one that involves death in some form. As to what extent death was present in the original creation it is told to us or highly implied that it is plant death. Whether or not some creatures ate other creatures (however small or large), it remains unknown. I have not studied it that indepth yet. But I'm a bit confused on what spiders would consume in the original creation if there were no death of at least smaller creatures. Why did they have the ability to weave webs or inject venom? A curse God placed on the world? Maybe. But in my opinion a system of death is very functional. It may not be enjoyable, but it is functional. And it should be noted that the only evil was probably God's rejection of his protection of us. Without God's protection, the universe can be a very dangerous place. Consider being ejected out into space without God protecting you. Space isn't evil; it's just part of the creation.

 

[Packrat]

Or, perhaps, "the serpent" was a product of the human mind emerging, believing that they deserved everything. . . . . perhaps "the serpent" is the human failing of "selfishness" in disguise. :-?

See Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2. Why is the Devil called the Old Serpent? Why a Serpent? Why even the Old Serpent?

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

...

I believe that God created the universe with death from the beginning. ..
...

Nope. it was sin that brought death into the world.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

...

...A curse God placed on the world? Maybe. ...

The curse. Definitely.

Jhn 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
He does indeed have a purpose for death. Prompting the cliche' "Born once, die twice. Born twice, die once."

 

[Orion]

Packrat, I'm not sure how what you said answers the problem I pointed out in the "world wide flood" time period.

However, I have issues with the "serpent story and Eve" as being absolutely literal. If the "serpent" was evil, then one would think that it wouldn't have been allowed in the "perfect garden", because it would no longer BE "perfect" anymore the second this creature entered it.

Just my thoughts.

I think your idea of Satan (if that is who you believe the Serpent is) not being allowed near God or a holy place is an incorrect notion. Check out Job again. Satan came before God, falsely accusing Job. If God allowed Satan to temporarily visit him, then why wouldn't he allow Satan into the Garden which was in a place called Eden on the planet Earth? Also check out the story about Satan trying to tempt Jesus to sin. Jesus in my opinion is God, so Satan was allowed near God again. And if God is omnipresent, then how can Satan ever escape beyond his presence? If Satan is in the presence of the Holy Divine every single moment of his life, then why would it matter where he was at the time - whether it be in Heaven or on Earth?

I tend to think that the Garden of Eden account does record Satan's fall though - if not completely then at least in part.

I don't believe that the story happened exactly as was written, but was a story to tell how men fell from grace to eventually need to be saved, from themselves.

As for the flood issue, I guess we'll have to let that one go for now, since there doesn't seem to be any answer for the question about unbroken cultural history right through the supposed time of the flood. That's fine with me.

 

[Orion]

...

I believe that God created the universe with death from the beginning. ..
...

Nope. it was sin that brought death into the world.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

...

...A curse God placed on the world? Maybe. ...

The curse. Definitely.

Jhn 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
He does indeed have a purpose for death. Prompting the cliche' "Born once, die twice. Born twice, die once."

I don't think sin brought death into the world, perhaps indirectly. Because of sin, the "tree of life" was no longer available to men, thus they began to die. If it had been taken from an unsinful Adam (before the fall), he would have died.

 

[Packrat]

...

I believe that God created the universe with death from the beginning. ..
...

Nope. it was sin that brought death into the world.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

What that passage tells me is that death for man entered into the world or became a reality when man sinned. I don't think it has anything to do with death for other creatures. It's just talking about death for mankind in my opinion. And I've always had the impression that man was immortal before he sinned and God removed his grace or protection from him, thus allowing him to die. So death for mankind was brought on by sin, but death for plants I think was in the original creation. Unless chewing, digesting, and defecating the plants out somehow did not kill them.

 

[Barbarian]

you said life forms all throughout the stratas... I say "Cambrian Explosion".. in this relative short period of time most all the life forms land and sea, and air appear...

Since many of the existing phyla (and many that have gone extinct) are found in Precambrian rocks, there isn't that much of the "explosion" left. And even by the late Cambrian, there are no birds, no trees, no octopi, no bears, no flowers, no snakes, no beetles, no flies, no reptiles, no horses, no people, no butterflies, no mushrooms, no ferns, no.... but you get the idea.

Only a tiny fraction of the diversity of life we have today, can be found in the Cambrian. There was a lot of diversification of arthropods, mostly because whole exoskeletons had finally evolved. But even those aren't exclusively Cambrian; earlier animals were partly sclerotized.

I am always amazed that people think a few invertebrates are the bulk of life's diversity.

 

[Packrat]

I now know the light and time travel through space is coming under question because of gravity pull form suns and planets.. one example, light can not excape from a black hole... so with this new information.. I'll have to wait... but this problem by no means make me doubt the existences of God..

There is currently the issue of time dilation being discussed in science. In other words, the known universe is larger than would be expected had light merely moved at the speed of light from the creation of the universe. This makes the universe appear older than it actually is since light appears to have traveled further than it is currently thought to have traveled. To illustrate this point, the universe might appear to be 15 billion years old because of the distance it seems light has traveled, but in actuality it might only be like 6 or 7 billion years old. There is more to reckoning the age of the universe than simply measuring the speed of light and then measuring how far out it has traveled, and this all has to do with the supposed expansion of the universe I believe.

I'm not sure on the exact numbers I put down, but I hope you get the point. Could the universe then be only 6000 years old when it appears to be some billions of years old? Who knows. I personally don't think there is any support for the 6,000 year age of the universe in the Scriptures.