Jump to content

Menu

(CC) If you don't believe in a literal creation


Recommended Posts

Keep in mind that when the Bible lists the begats they are talking in terms of generations. Adam lived to be something like 900 years old before he died -certainly enough time for him to have a LOT of children. All of his offspring (besides Abel) lived to be very old as well - again plenty of time for them to have a ton of kids. Not all of them are mentioned - it would take too much time and page space -so only the ones with historical significance are mentioned.

 

So you are inferring on a few vague phrases that whole cities of people must have been born in between a few lines of text? That's fine, I actually accept and agree with that logic.

 

By the same logic, I believe that creation, and the science of it, was also far too overwhelming to fit into the space of just a few chapters, or even one book. The complexity of the information alone would have overwhelmed most readers, who for the majority of human history, has only enjoyed the most rudimentary understanding of the earth and the cosmos.

 

So, why is it YEC proponents can understand and grasp that by necessity, information about large numbers of people and whole generations could only be touched upon, due to space limitations, but that the creation story must needs be totally complete, with nothing left out, and everything that happened neatly contained therein? You want to tell me that the entire creation of the universe, the solar system, the earth, all its ecosystems, and humanity was less complicated and more easily described than listing a few thousand generations of people?

 

The thing about the Bible is it was written in a culture and a language that is far, far more image-based, and subjective than Western language or culture today. When I took an OT survey class years ago, from an evangelical perspective, it struck me that the instructor could passionately expound upon all the ways in which the ancient authors of the Bible would have viewed such concepts as time (they often rounded numbers of years, it wasn't important to be precise), and history (you see all. the. time. that prophets fluidly switch back and forth between present, past, and future happenings), and yet turn around and claim an exegesis of scripture ignores all that for an unnatural, and unwieldy literal meaning thrust upon it.

 

The Bible is full of non-literal language, because the language and the mindset of the authors was one of subjective, experiential concepts. Everything in their culture and language was symbolic, even the literal stuff! Seven years' reign was not just a literal number--it was regarded as conveying a spiritual truth. A birth or death was never just a mundane human reality; it represented something important happening in the spiritual realm. So, when something important happened, it wasn't the literal time or literal place that happened that was important to the ancient mind; it was the numbers and symbolic spiritual nature of the names of places that gave it meaning. In other words, the specific details which give us Westerners such a frame of reference for our lives--our precise sense of time and place--was never part or paramount to the Hebrew mind.

 

For people to keep treating the Bible as if Hebrew authors abandoned their cultural upbringing and language to write it in literal terms for Western understanding, calls for a particularly breathtaking leap of (or break from) logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, nor do I believe Noah's Ark was a real thing. I do believe in God and I am a Christian. I grew up in a conservative, literal interpretation of the Bible household but I have since changed my view. I believe we all probably worship the same god, no matter what we call him, and I completely respect the views of others as their own reality. I believe we all have a different reality just as we all have a different perspective, which is what makes God so amazing. My children have their own different beliefs which is a lot of fun at the dinner table! :D I am studying Buddhism now and am trying to incorporate the Buddhist teachings into my own life. Hanh's Living Buddha Living Christ is wonderful and I am enjoying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to add the explanation my dad would give me when I was young. He would tell me not to get too hung up on the details and the arguments and focus on God's love and the fact that He is love. Making sure everyone can see that in you is the most important part of being a Christian, not the trivia. Being a preacher's daughter was a good thing. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists actually cannot be sure of the bolded. They have made assumptions about the rate of change in mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA that may or may not be accurate. If change actually happened faster than the current consensus estimates, then the YE folks could be right about Adam and Eve living about 6,000 years ago. I don't personally think that it's all that likely Adam and Eve lived so recently, but it is within the realm of possibility.

 

I lean toward an OE timeline and God-guided evolution of the hominid body, but I do believe in the special creation of Adam's and Eve's souls, making them the first true humans.

 

Even if they lived at different times, I tend to think that what we have been able to trace is Noah's DNA on the male side, and Eve's DNA on the female side. It is harder to trace male DNA far back, so perhaps they have only been able to trace as far back as Noah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, by that rationale, Neanderthals didn't have souls. Homo erectus didn't have a soul. None of the other 14 species of humans had souls, just homo sapiens? And none of the homo sapiens had souls either, until God created Adam.

 

Is that what you're saying? Just clarifying....

Personally, I tend to think Adam and Eve were Homo erectus, or possibly sooner. I have no real evidence (Biblical or scientific), but that seems the most likely to me just by reading about early hominid species. I do agree that before God created Adam and Eve (whoever they were) the existing hominids did not have souls.

 

I believe Adam and Eve were most probably 2 individuals, specially created, possibly along the lines that were evolving naturally. However, I accept that they might have actually been symbolic of all mankind. Alternatively, I am also open to the possibility that nothing has evolved and that all life was specially created. However, I do not believe that God used 6 literal 24 hour periods to create all that exists, even though he obviously could have if he had chosen to do so. The evidence he left us in our world and galaxy and universe tells us that that isn't the way he chose to do things.

 

I wish God had chosen to tell us more about the very early history of our world and species (and I am willing to accept whatever Homo variations might or might not have been our ancestors as part of our species). However, that would have taken away space from things that are more important for us to know and understand, and would probably also have unnecessarily confused earlier generations who did not have the background knowledge to understand the early history. It is also possible that even today we don't have enough science knowledge to understand very well what God did and the early history of our world and ourselves. God is far enough above us that we will certainly never understand completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to add the explanation my dad would give me when I was young. He would tell me not to get too hung up on the details and the arguments and focus on God's love and the fact that He is love. Making sure everyone can see that in you is the most important part of being a Christian, not the trivia. Being a preacher's daughter was a good thing. :001_smile:

 

What do you think of verses like: For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

 

Would you're Dad consider that (Isaiah 48:11) verse as getting hung up on the details?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think of verses like: For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

 

Would you're Dad consider that (Isaiah 48:11) verse as getting hung up on the details?

 

How is believing in an Old Earth creation scenario taking any glory from God? It isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think of verses like: For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

Would you're Dad consider that (Isaiah 48:11) verse as getting hung up on the details?

I don't know and I can't speak for him. I can tell you that the verse you quote really says nothing to me, sorry. I think what he was speaking to when he talked to me growing up was my doubts and my feeling toward the attitude that if you don't believe in all of it, you're not a Christian. When I was made to feel that I had to believe in Noah's ark or any literal translation of pretty much anything in the Bible that went against my feelings of what is rational. My dad felt strongly that I needed to keep a faith in God. I think it is fairly common. Honestly, verses like that and being challenged such make me dislike religion even more. It always has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...