s/o from evolution as a belief

[Molly]

If something needs to be specifically spelled out,

then why not the date? There's a lot that is asserted by YEC that is not specifically spelled out in Genesis, at all.

 

When I read "in his image he created them, male and female he created them" and then spoke to them, the impression to me is that it is the same time. No mention whatsoever of bringing Adam the animals to name (that would take more than 1 literal 24 hour day for sure). No mention of ribs. No men walking around with less than 24 ribs baring surgery or congenital defect.

 

I'm not sure what YEC has to do with what I said, I was merely sharing how I interpret the two chapters. 

 

In regard to what you have said there, as I said I see Chapter 1 as a summary, to me a summary is just that.  A summary doesn't necessarily list what happened in the particular order that it was done in. 

 

Thank you GSOchristie, that actually makes a great deal of sense.  I often think of doing a theology class, I think I would really enjoy it.

[Onceuponatime]

I've never heard of it as two different events, either, so maybe a difference between denominations?  It has been a long time since I had a theology class, but if I recall correctly, this is a common Jewish way to write.  To present an idea, then go back in the next passage and expound on it.  Genesis 1 was the broad overarching picture that set the stage, Genesis 2 goes back and talks about the special creation of man, with details.

 Many scholars who do historical criticism of Biblical texts believe that, because of the different style and age of the language used  in each account, they are actually separate traditional creation accounts  that were both included when Genesis was written down, which may have been  as late as the 600's BC.

[milovany]

I am hardly the only person to read the bible and consider this two accounts and certainly anyone who is truly well versed in Genesis knows that this debate (1 or 2 accounts?) exists and didn't just hear about it today. 

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been a Christian for almost 30 years, have read Genesis many times, and I hadn't heard that before. I didn't know people saw it as two separate accounts, I always read it and heard it taught as one. Thanks for enlightening me that an opposing viewpoint is out there. 

[LucyStoner]

I'm not seeing it either, Katie. They're not mutually exclusive. Genesis one doesn't say God created Adam and Eve at the exact same time; just that He created both of them and had plans to do that from the beginning.  My husband and  I planned to have a large family from the start and created all seven of our children, but not all at once. It could say somewhere of us, "So [milovany and mr. milovany] created [children] in their own image, in the image of [m/m] created [they] [them]; male and female created [they][them]." The creation of our kiddos happened over the course of 15 years, but we did create them all. 

 

But Orthodox Christianity doesn't have the Bible as the sole foundation, so arguing Scripture doesn't work well to begin with and I apologize if it seems like that's what I'm doing.  For us, faith is more about what we do and live, not what we read and study. 

 

See to me, in the second one he doesn't plan to create them both.  He sees that it is not good for man to be alone and brings him a bunch of unsuitable companions first.  The rib thing seems to be a backup on the fly plan honestly.  Like "oh, this isn't working and isn't good, need to find something else that I didn't previously create or have on hand to be bring to Adam."

 

People can read the same words and take very different meanings.  I don't expect anyone to accept my understanding of it but my understanding of it is hardly rare or new. 

 

These are but  of many of the same or very similar stories.  I find it facinating what went in and how it was translated (often selectively as research shows) and what was left out and why.  As a girl born into the Catholic church I share the view that scripture is not the sole foundation of Christian faith.  None of this was recorded in the moment, the oldest versions we have are pretty recent all things considered. 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Many scholars who do historical criticism of Biblical texts believe that, because of the different style and age of the language used in each account, they are actually separate traditional creation accounts that were both included when Genesis was written down, which may have been as late as the 600's BC.

I agree. One is in verse, the other in prose. This indicates to linguists that the one in verse was originally an oral history. Anyone who has read Gilgamesh or other (earlier) ancient writings will recognize elements from Genesis. The Bible isn't the only piece of literature to contain a lot of these stories. That is part of the reason people consider them metaphorical, symbolic and/or part of early man's universal experience. That is not the same, IMO, as considering the miracles of Christ to be symbolic. But, considering the wars fought and blood shed over things like transubstantiation, we shouldn't be surprised that people are fairly entrenched in their own beliefs.

[milovany]

In the second one he doesn't plan to create them both.  He see that it is not good for man to be alone and brings him a bumnch of unsuitable companions first.  The rib thing seems to be a backup on the fly plan honestly.  Like "oh, this isn't working and isn't good, need to find something else that I didn't previously create or have on hand to be bring to Adam."

 

People can read the same words and take very different meanings.  I don't expect anyone to accept my understanding of it but my understanding of it is hardly rare or new. 

 

 

I didn't think your understanding was new! Forgive me if it seemed you were being accused of making something up; that wasn't my thought at all. I just hadn't heard it before. I still don't see them as inconsistent. God transcends time. He knew in Genesis one how His creation of Eve would play out. It wasn't an afterthought. It was still His plan to create them both, and to do so in His image.  And He did. To me, it was more like, "I knew this day would come -- watch this!" The Christian church was teaching on these things before there was a Bible, so whatever's in the Bible has to match up to what the church was teaching at the time (since they gave us the Bible, and they wouldn't have included something inconsistent with what they taught).  It'd be interesting to look into what the early church fathers taught.  (To me, not necessarily to you!)

 

[GSOchristie]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1131

 

Here is a discussion of the two stories issue, which I will admit, I have never heard until tonight :).

[Molly]

 Many scholars who do historical criticism of Biblical texts believe that, because of the different style and age of the language used  in each account, they are actually separate traditional creation accounts  that were both included when Genesis was written down, which may have been  as late as the 600's BC.

 

This is what I love about discussions, we learn all sorts of things.  I personally would be interested to read or hear what these people have to say.  I have listened to Bart Ehrman once or twice.  I do disagree with much of what he says and agree with a little.  I always take interest in people's interpretation of the Bible and how it was put together, but I do like to check where their biases are coming from.  Mind you, that is how I approach everything. 

 

I would really love to know more about the coming together of the Bible, because I find it amazing how many things connect within that would not have been written at the same time, and those who wrote it would not have had the scriptures on hand like we do. 

[GSOchristie]

This exactly. I am close to a few Christians that do this very thing. They do not believe that numerous Biblical stories actually occurred, because "how could that ever be possible?". They view the Bible (Old Testament mainly) as a sort of loose guidebook with analogies for us to learn from, taking or leaving scripture as they please. They go in circles when discussing Biblical issues, questioning, analyzing, teetering.To me, it undermines His authority and power and their worldviews reflect that. 

 

I don't think old earth or young earth belief itself is a matter of salvation, but I have seen myself how that slippery slope can pull one away from Him. 

 

We actually are very conservative (Reformed, that conservative  ;) ), but we were never comfortable with YE.  So we researched what our most respected theologians (Al Mohler, John PIper, Russell Moore, etc.) said about issue.  PIper recommended a book called Genesis Unbound that is written by a conservative Hebrew expert.  It completely revolutionized our view of creation!  So, if you have a hard time with YE, I would encourage you to give it a read, it is short and easy to understand :).

[LucyStoner]

I didn't think your understanding was new! Forgive me if it seemed you were being accused of making something up; that wasn't my thought at all. I just hadn't heard it before. I still don't see them as inconsistent. God transcends time. He knew in Genesis one how His creation of Eve would play out. It wasn't an afterthought. It was still His plan to create them both, and to do so in His image.  And He did. To me, it was more like, "I knew this day would come -- watch this!" The Christian church was teaching on these things before there was a Bible, so whatever's in the Bible has to match up to what the church was teaching at the time (since they gave us the Bible, and they wouldn't have included something inconsistent with what they taught).  It'd be interesting to look into what the early church fathers taught.  (To me, not necessarily to you!)

 

I edited my post a little bit to clarify my interest in the subject.  I really don't see how the bible can be seen as the literal truth all the time.  This is but one small example.  The bible was written by men after all and what does the bible say about men?  All of us (men in the royal sense ;) ) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.  So how do we know what is really what when it comes to versions of the bible, to say nothing of the fact few people are reading it in the oldest languages and that some versions are re-written not from the "originals" but from later translations.  My bible was translated by Catholic scholars rather than updated from various other English translations.  The notes are quite extensive and interesting.  Obviously, this is something that the Catholic Church (where I came from) and the Orthodox Church have a more similar understanding on than we each do to other denominations. 

 

My brother for example sticks to the words of Christ and I really can't say that I blame him.  In doing so, he has maintained his faith.  That seems more true to Jesus than parsing the Old Testament.  

[livetoread]

In the first version God created plants, then the birds another day, and then the animals on yet another day. Humans were the same day as animals, but later in the day. In the second version, first God made Adam (before any plants were on the earth), then created a garden, then created all the birds and animals, then created Eve. It's a different sequence.

[Molly]

See to me, in the second one he doesn't plan to create them both.  He sees that it is not good for man to be alone and brings him a bunch of unsuitable companions first.  The rib thing seems to be a backup on the fly plan honestly.  Like "oh, this isn't working and isn't good, need to find something else that I didn't previously create or have on hand to be bring to Adam."

 

People can read the same words and take very different meanings.  I don't expect anyone to accept my understanding of it but my understanding of it is hardly rare or new. 

 

These are but  of many of the same or very similar stories.  I find it facinating what went in and how it was translated (often selectively as research shows) and what was left out and why.  As a girl born into the Catholic church I share the view that scripture is not the sole foundation of Christian faith.  None of this was recorded in the moment, the oldest versions we have are pretty recent all things considered. 

 

 

This is something I've been mulling over today, about the whole God planning things.  I'm not convinced he does.  I know it says in Psalms that He says He knows what he has planned for us, but I've been thinking with what limited understanding of the Bible I have, is it that He is saying He knows exactly what we are going to do, or are His plans for us that He wants us to love HIm.  I'm not sure you will even get what I'm trying to say because I haven't given it enough thought to be put it in a way to be understood by others.  I'll try to give this as an example.  I have plans for my children to love me in my old age, but they have the choice whether they want to love me or not.  So although I plan for them to love me, it may not work out that way.  I will do everything in my power for them to love me, but ultimately it is up to them because I can't make them.

 

I was raised in the Catholic Church complete with Catholic schools as well.  I agree that scripture is not the sole foundation of Christian faith, but I do believe it is a marvelous piece of literature considering how it is put together and I do hold it in much higher regard than any other piece of literature.

[LucyStoner]

  I agree that scripture is not the sole foundation of Christian faith, but I do believe it is a marvelous piece of literature considering how it is put together and I do hold it in much higher regard than any other piece of literature.

 

I would agree that it is literature in many parts, but I would have to say that the literary quality drops off a smidge when the whole begats begots a-whozzits get underway ;).  Other parts are quite amazing.  Other parts are quite disturbing. 

[LucyStoner]

Eliana-

 

When I say literal I am addressing the idea promulgated by some that everything in the Bible is 100% accurate as a perfect trifecta of religious, scientific and historical texts. I've personally never seen that attitude among my (mostly Conservative rather than Reform or Orthodox) Jewish friends and neighbors. I am not super familiar with Orthodox Jewish beliefs as Conservative and Reform are both much more common around where I live but I don't get the sense from your posts that your definition of literal is the one that I pretty strongly disagree with. In another thread today I shared a very similar opinion to something you just wrote. As you (very eloquently) put it:

 

"I believe that the truths of the Torah aren't history or science lessons, and that it does the holiness of the text a disservice to try to turn them into such"

 

Parapharsing myself I believe I said that treating Genesis as a science text strips it of it's meaning and is overall demeaning to the value... at least that is what I usually think/say/write about such things. Personally, while I may not have the same religious beliefs that I once did, I do feel that making Genesis into literal truth, a sort of ancient almanac in a sense, makes the profound pretty profane and simplistic.

[mytwomonkeys]

What do you mean my literal truth?

 

I believe that the Torah (written and oral) came directly from HaKadosh Baruch Hu (The Holy One, Blessed be He) to Moshe Rabbeinu and that there is nothing extraneous, nothing created by humans.

 

(I also take seriously every word of Vayikra (Leviticus) and we are careful about, for instance, not wearing garments with a mixture of wool and linen)

 

...but I believe that the truths of the Torah aren't history or science lessons, and that it does the holiness of the text a disservice to try to turn them into such...

 

Luanne, I am not picking and choosing what I believe, btw. I hold each word sacred, each commandment, each shade of meaning, each allusion to the Oral Torah, and they are the center of every aspect of my life, every bite I take, everything I do, wear... everything.

 

My understanding of the complexities of the text come from both studying the text itself, and the many commentaries our Sages and teachers have created from their own study, and their knowledge of the Oral Torah which (we hold) was given with the Written Torah and without which the Written Torah cannot be properly understood. ..and within that tradition, there are a wide range of possible readings of the account of Creation, including 'yom' not being a literal 24-hour 'day' (and these commentaries predate any geologic suggestions about the age of the universe).

 

Katie, I'm not sure how to answer your question - in some ways I guess I qualify as a (Jewish) fundamentalist, but my faith doesn't, and has never, claimed that every section of the Torah is intended to be read with the kind of literalness I've seen in some Protestant readings, so maybe you aren't address my flavor of literalness?

I really enjoyed your post. :) Very much.

 

As for literal vs metaphor as mentioned throughout this thread, I believe the bible provides both throughout . For me, I believe the creation account as being literal and that Adam was a real person, not symbolic of mankind.

[GSOchristie]

In the first version God created plants, then the birds another day, and then the animals on yet another day. Humans were the same day as animals, but later in the day. In the second version, first God made Adam (before any plants were on the earth), then created a garden, then created all the birds and animals, then created Eve. It's a different sequence.

 

Hmmm, I'm looking into this because it is puzzling (and I just did a BSF study in Genesis so I can't believe it wasn't addressed because they are nothing if not thorough ;)).  I'm guessing the land referred to here is not the whole earth, but the garden.  The earth had form and plants, but God wanted to make a special place for mankind, his "very good" creation.  This is totally a guess.  

[Mom in High Heels]

Because Indy is such an archaeology geek (he even has a shirt that reads: archaeology geek), I have my news set up to show any news stories dealing with archaeology.  We've found some really interesting stuff.  Anyhoo, this morning an article popped up about the timeline of the Bible and camels.  As I read this thread, I thought some of you might find it interesting.  

[Kalmia]

The "attack" or "prove" issue is key, IMO.  From the Slate article I posted in the other thread:

 

But Ham is insidiously wrong on one important aspect: He insists evolution is anti-religious. But it’s not; it’s just anti-his-religion. This is, I think, the most critical aspect of this entire problem: The people who are attacking evolution are doing so because they think evolution is attacking their beliefs.

 

A parallel argument came up in an older thread about America's deep individualism and distrust of authority, which I argued might be a sort of self-selection thing, genetic or otherwise.  People in general will push back and/or retrench when they perceive attack.  Arguing with stats and facts, which makes perfect scientific sense, does no good, and actually only strengthens the "siege" response.  Build your own network and your own universities, shut the gates, and sure, everyone outside looks like Hun.

 

Perhaps we do it even more, based on our history and/or composition of temperaments, aided by our massive land resources and not having been invaded, which means not ever having to really adopt or adjust to another incoming culture, at least not on the massive scales that transformed Europe.

 

Or, the flip side...We're big and fractured, which encourages tribalism (religious, political, etc), because there's simply more psychological comfort in tribes, which is needed even more if other factors, like, say, job security, are in flux.

They only let you like something one time, so I had to quote this too. I find the anthropological perspective on religion very illuminating and comforting. 

[Molly]

Because Indy is such an archaeology geek (he even has a shirt that reads: archaeology geek), I have my news set up to show any news stories dealing with archaeology.  We've found some really interesting stuff.  Anyhoo, this morning an article popped up about the timeline of the Bible and camels.  As I read this thread, I thought some of you might find it interesting.  

 

I heard a snipit about this on the radio the other day and forgot to do a search to find out more about it.  Thanks for reminding me.  Must explore some more I think.

[Laura Corin]

 Many scholars who do historical criticism of Biblical texts believe that, because of the different style and age of the language used  in each account, they are actually separate traditional creation accounts  that were both included when Genesis was written down, which may have been  as late as the 600's BC.

 

The section on Creation Stories from the Galore Park Religious Studies text sample might show how common this view is, perhaps in Episcopalian/Anglican circles?

 

L

[WishboneDawn]

I think there are thoughtful YECs who reject evolution because of its theological ramifications.

 

If there is a creator god, and this creator god used evolution to create, then what does that say about the nature of the creator god? It is evidence against the concept of a loving deity that hates death. In reality, suffering and death are a feature of the creative process, not a bug. This deity purposefully made a world where animals ripped each other to shreds for millions of years before humans ever came along. It's the problem of evil on steroids!

 

In the YEC narrative, it was not this god's intention for the world to have suffering and death. It's our fault. (Of course that still doesn't answer the problem of evil, but nothing really can.) With evolution, it's god's fault.

 

Some try and get around this by suggesting that this was the best possible world for this god to create. But then one would have to accept that there is no heaven. If God is capable of creating a space in which there is no suffering, why create a space where there is? Curiosity?

 

It's at this point that many who believe in a loving, powerful god, and also accept science throw up their hands and start talking about the mysterious ways of their god. One thing is true though. Evolution is an extremely powerful piece of evidence against the existence of a loving creator god as described by most Christians. Much easier to either discount evolution, or just not really try and reconcile things too much.

 

I think that's a good description of the origins of creationism. It morphed a lot in the 70's especially with the Southern Baptist convention thingamabob and much of it has become more political but there are honourable (to my mind) if mistaken roots. The Great Courses' History of Science lectures has a wonderful treatment of the origins of modern creationism in the last century or so. 

[WishboneDawn]

Genesis contains two different creation stories. As you should well know. That seems to indicate that at least some picking is inherently required if we are to believe there is a literally true version of creation in Genesis.

 

I have read the Bible in full and more than once and I don't take away any set timeline of when the beginning was relative to when Jesus was born. Unless the last few Popes aren't Christian, there are Christians far more notable than Ken Ham that accept an OE, evolutionary viewpoint.

 

I don't know if it indicates you need to pick and choose so much as you need to educate yourself on different forms of criticism and analysis. I accept both stories. One as a liturgy that outlines cores beliefs of the ancient Hebrews and Modern Christians and the other as a story that has it roots in the oral tales the Ancient Hebrews told. Both contain important truths that only non-literal writings can adequately communicate. 

 

When it comes to factual account of our origins, I go to science. 

[WishboneDawn]

 I never said other people didn't believe in two accounts; I said I had never heard of it before. I'm telling the truth. I've never heard of it in 30 years of church attendance.

 

It's very common in secular and liberal to moderate church scholarship and churchs that look to those. But if you're part of a more conservative or literal denomination then that's not the kind of information you're going to be exposed to.

 

It's nothing radical or new but I can completely understand why some, like you, have never heard of it. :)

[WishboneDawn]

Some Torah commentators say this means that the original creation was both male and female, and in the second account they are separated.   ...and some folks draw from that and say that our souls are created paired and separated to be born into separate bodies and that when we find our "soul mate" s/he is literally the other half of our soul.

 

 

My faith tradition (Orthodox Jewish) takes as a given that every word, every letter of the Torah has an intrinsic purpose, and any seeming repetition is there to add something.

 

That would be my take as a Liberal Christian. :D

 

Repitition is a literary device in the Hebrew Scriptures. The psalms do it all the time, one verse will state something and then the next verse willsay the same thing in a different manner. Within a bigger story some elements, even contradictory ones, are repeated, Did Noah send out a dove or a raven? How many individuals of each species got on the ark? And then whole stories are repeated, as with Genesis.

 

And it's not carelessness. These were carefully edited texts. It's because, as you said, every word was important. There something we needed to notice in the act of creating man and woman together. But there was also important truth in the the idea that man was created and then woman. By attempting to merge the two stories in some sort of obsession over providing a factual account, something would have been lost, so they didn't do that. And that should be a huge red flag that reading simply for factual truth is a mistake that the writers and editors of the Hebrew Scriptures were specifically trying to preempt. 

 

If I've gone farther then you or in a different direction, forgive me.

 

I also appreciate that you're bringing up a distinction between literal and factual. I wasn't even aware of it until a discussion at my EFM course a couple of years ago. I'm still shaky on it - it would make for a good discussion here. 

[PeachyDoodle]

In Chapter 1, it says man and woman were created, no mention of at the same time.  On the same day yes.  I agree it says in Chapter 2, Eve was created in Adam's image, however, being that Adam was created in God's image, Eve would have been also.

 

Chapter 1 is more of a summary of what was created each day, Chapter 2 gives specifics on what and how things were created on Day 6.  Why only Day 6 gets more specifics I don't know, but I choose to believe it is because mankind was made in God's image therefore a highlight of creation as a whole.

 

But that's not what it says. It says that Eve was created FROM Adam, not in his image. By that logic, we'd have to say that Adam was created in the image of the dirt, because that's where he came from. This is actually a very important distinction, IMO. I agree with your assessment of the two stories -- in no way are they mutually exclusive, even though one is more detailed. The details given are not in conflict with one another.

 

 

 Many scholars who do historical criticism of Biblical texts believe that, because of the different style and age of the language used  in each account, they are actually separate traditional creation accounts  that were both included when Genesis was written down, which may have been  as late as the 600's BC.

 

Yes, and many biblical scholars believe that, whatever the mechanical process for compiling the stories, the process was overseen by God, who is the ultimate author of all scripture. In which case, the two accounts are not an either/or proposition, but a both/and proposition. If you look at the overarching scope of the Bible, it has an amazing continuity for 66 books written by 45 men over several hundred years.

 

 

I edited my post a little bit to clarify my interest in the subject.  I really don't see how the bible can be seen as the literal truth all the time.  This is but one small example.  The bible was written by men after all and what does the bible say about men?  All of us (men in the royal sense ;) ) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.  So how do we know what is really what when it comes to versions of the bible, to say nothing of the fact few people are reading it in the oldest languages and that some versions are re-written not from the "originals" but from later translations.  My bible was translated by Catholic scholars rather than updated from various other English translations.  The notes are quite extensive and interesting.  Obviously, this is something that the Catholic Church (where I came from) and the Orthodox Church have a more similar understanding on than we each do to other denominations. 

 

My brother for example sticks to the words of Christ and I really can't say that I blame him.  In doing so, he has maintained his faith.  That seems more true to Jesus than parsing the Old Testament.  

 

See my point above. The mechanical process by which it was written was through men, sure. But MANY Christians throughout the centuries have believed that the ultimate author of the Bible was God himself. The New Testament even makes this claim for itself; it calls itself "breathed out by God" (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).

 

No disrespect meant to your brother by any means, but I don't quite follow the logic behind going "red-letter" as a response to the fact that scripture was written by men. Men did, after all, write down the words of Jesus as well. And some of those same men wrote other parts of scripture which are rejected by red-letter Christians.

[livetoread]

There is an interesting book by historian Ron Numbers called The Creationists. It covers the history of the movement.

 

In YECism, there is a coherent arc or narrative that fits, not only with Genesis, but with later NT writings, especially Paul. God created a perfect world because God is good. God created perfect humans who were without sin, but God also gave those perfect humans free will. They chose to disobey, which brought sin into the world, and gave Satan the destructive power that he did not have before. Because death is the result of sin, humans were no longer able to enter into that eternal perfect relationship with God. Therefore, Jesus had to come and die as the sacrificial lamb, the perfect sacrifice, the substitute death, for our sins. Because of his sacrifice, humans were now able, once again to have an eternal, perfect relationship with God in heaven, if they so choose.

 

(Edited to say that God will also some day get rid of pain, suffering, and death on this earth for good, restoring the earth to its former Eden state).

 

Now compare that with what evolution tells us (assuming a creator deity). God created a world in which suffering and death were rampant from the get go. Creatures capable of feeling immense pain did so for millions of years for no apparent reason other than that's the way it was. Humans evolved through the same process, with species capable of complex thought, self-awareness, and rudimentary religious practices now extinct (Did God love them too? Any plan for their salvation?) Humans were created sinful. They never had a choice about their propensity to sin, because they were sinful creatures born into a sinful world. We are born separate from God, because that's how God created us in the first place.

 

I should add here that I don't want to get into the weeds of free will, but I do think much of our behavior is driven by forces outside of our free choice. That doesn't mean we can't change, but that we behave badly (sin if you will) because of our physiology interacting with our environment.

 

So here we are, messed up in a messed up world, because that's how God made us. So what exactly is the purpose of Jesus? He somehow saves us from the mess he made in the first place? How? And if there is some place we go after we die that allows us eternal, perfect communion with God, why not create our world like that to begin with? There is no Paradise Lost, if there is no Paradise to begin with. If God is capable of making us perfect, death-free, and in communion with him in heaven, why in the world, are we and all the animals suffering for millions of years? There is no answer to that.

 

I think this is part of why YECists often cling so fiercely to Genesis. It's not about Genesis, it's the whole plan of salvation and the character of God in question.

[Onceuponatime]

 

 

Yes, and many biblical scholars believe that, whatever the mechanical process for compiling the stories, the process was overseen by God, who is the ultimate author of all scripture. In which case, the two accounts are not an either/or proposition, but a both/and proposition. If you look at the overarching scope of the Bible, it has an amazing continuity for 66 books written by 45 men over several hundred years.

 

I'm very familiar with these beliefs, because I once believed this way myself. Nevertheless, that God is the author must be taken on solely on faith and is not something that can be proved.

 

 

See my point above. The mechanical process by which it was written was through men, sure. But MANY Christians throughout the centuries have believed that the ultimate author of the Bible was God himself. The New Testament even makes this claim for itself; it calls itself "breathed out by God" (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).

 

 

Many people believing something does not necessarily make  that thing a fact. Also, the Timothy scripture you referenced does not actually make a claim for the New Testament (which did not exist at the time) or for the book of Timothy. If Paul wrote this , he would have been referring to the traditional scriptures that Timothy  knew from infancy, which were probably most of those that we would consider the Old Testament.

 

[albeto.]

I am hardly the only person to read the bible and considers this two different accounts and certainly anyone who is truly well versed in Genesis knows that this debate (1 or 2 accounts?) exists and didn't just hear about it today. 

 

Don't be surprised. There's a lot of things in the bible that christians physically read and yet are completely ignorant of. It's pretty common, ime. The cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias is why two people can read the same book and come away with completely different theologies. 

[PeachyDoodle]

Yes, and many biblical scholars believe that, whatever the mechanical process for compiling the stories, the process was overseen by God, who is the ultimate author of all scripture. In which case, the two accounts are not an either/or proposition, but a both/and proposition. If you look at the overarching scope of the Bible, it has an amazing continuity for 66 books written by 45 men over several hundred years.

 

I'm very familiar with these beliefs, because I once believed this way myself. Nevertheless, that God is the author must be taken on solely on faith and is not something that can be proved.

 

 

See my point above. The mechanical process by which it was written was through men, sure. But MANY Christians throughout the centuries have believed that the ultimate author of the Bible was God himself. The New Testament even makes this claim for itself; it calls itself "breathed out by God" (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).

 

 

Many people believing something does not necessarily make  that thing a fact. Also, the Timothy scripture you referenced does not actually make a claim for the New Testament (which did not exist at the time) or for the book of Timothy. If Paul wrote this , he would have been referring to the traditional scriptures that Timothy  knew from infancy, which were probably most of those that we would consider the Old Testament.

 

Seriously? That's the position you're going to take??? :confused1:

 

I didn't say that anything I said was "proof." And I could turn your argument right back around on you, because you said essentially the same thing: "MANY scholars who do historical criticism..." There is no definitive proof that the Genesis accounts WEREN'T written down earlier, or that they WEREN'T inspired by God. You can't prove a negative. And yes, there is some faith involved, but after all, we're talking about religion here. I don't think the involvement of faith is a surprise to anybody in this discussion.

 

I do think, however, that it is intellectually dishonest to point out that "many" scholars believe one thing, without acknowledging that "many" others believe something else entirely. I was merely rounding out the dogmatic statement that YOU made.

 

As to the canon of scripture, there is good evidence that the New Testament writings were in fact considered to be inspired scripture by the early church well before the composition of the canon. Peter, for example, refers to Paul's writings as scripture in one of his own letters. So I don't think you can exclude the New Testament from 2 Timothy based on that argument alone. Even if you can, we ARE discussing the Old Testament here, aren't we?

 

[milovany]

Don't be surprised. There's a lot of things in the bible that christians physically read and yet are completely ignorant of.

 

Care to reword that?  Ignorant has such negative connotations, which may be your approach to the matter, but it's not helpful in the discussion. It's statements like this that were referenced in the other thread. I wouldn't say I was ignorant as I have read Genesis, rather that neither I nor the Church that teaches me, believe it's two different accounts. That's just interpretation, not ignorance.  Ignorance, in this case, seems to mean your interpretation is right and any others are wrong. 

[Onceuponatime]

Seriously? That's the position you're going to take??? :confused1:

 

I didn't say that anything I said was "proof." And I could turn your argument right back around on you, because you said essentially the same thing: "MANY scholars who do historical criticism..." There is no definitive proof that the Genesis accounts WEREN'T written down earlier, or that they WEREN'T inspired by God. You can't prove a negative. And yes, there is some faith involved, but after all, we're talking about religion here. I don't think the involvement of faith is a surprise to anybody in this discussion.

 

Perhaps the word believe is the problem. It is not the same kind of belief that one needs to believe that God is the author of the Bible. It goes back to the original discussion of whether evolution is a belief. It was agreed that well accepted explanation was better terminology. Historical criticism is usually done in very structured way using methods that are universally accepted to examine any ancient historical document. It is not something that someone takes on faith, and some scholars do disagree on some of the findings of other scholars. Just like in the sciences, there are peer reviewed papers that are open for discussion.

 

I do think, however, that it is intellectually dishonest to point out that "many" scholars believe one thing, without acknowledging that "many" others believe something else entirely. I was merely rounding out the dogmatic statement that YOU made.

 

Hmm. I don't understand what dogmatic statements you think I have made. See my explanation of "believe" above. It is not equivalent to faith. It is more like "accept from visible evidence."

 

As to the canon of scripture, there is good evidence that the New Testament writings were in fact considered to be inspired scripture by the early church well before the composition of the canon. Peter, for example, refers to Paul's writings as scripture in one of his own letters. So I don't think you can exclude the New Testament from 2 Timothy based on that argument alone. Even if you can, we ARE discussing the Old Testament here, aren't we?

 

Yes, the original discussion was about the Old Testament, but I was answering your specific claim about the New Testament. Again, the fact that other people consider any writings to be divinely inspired, doesn't necessarily mean that they are. There are many other religions that have "divinely inspired scriptures" but you probably don't believe in them.

 

[Jennifer3141]

 

Why is proving Genesis of such importance?  I'm asking because I have family members who spend far more time talking about, reading about, studying about creationism vs. evolution that they spend talking about Jesus.

 

I'm asking this question of YEC because I know there are many, many (the majority) Christians who do not view Genesis literally and it in no way brings their faith into question for them."

 

Basically, why?  I hope this doesn't sound offensive, but it seems to me like a last ditch effort to prove the truth of Christianity - if we can prove the Genesis creation story, then all the rest will fall into place, that this is more about religion than science.

 

I asked my Mom this once because I didn't get why she was so invested in the 7 day story thing. And she told me that if she thought the bible was wrong that she would have a harder time believing it. I think this issue has made a great big problem for a lot of people, particularly the older folks.

 

My parents most beloved toys are their ipads. It cracks me up to see my 80 year old father happily watching movies and reading books on his ipad. It's hard for them to love technology aka SCIENCE while having this great big, "Science is bad!" thing hanging over them. We have a OEC a couple miles down the road. The vast majority of their parishioners are very elderly. There are a few families who are the progeny of those older folks but the church doesn't really grow.

 

And my parents freaked out when my kids tell them about ancient creation stories that sound like the bible but aren't; like Horus, the great flood, etc. It's very important to them that the bible also be the ONLY ancient story they know. But then they have a hard time when they stop and think about the roots of Christianity and how they are locked out from a lot of their history but not knowing much about Judaism.

 

It was odd for me growing up with them and watching them twist and turn with bizarre mental gymnastics. It was a surprise to neither of them when my brother and I rejected it and I moved onto humanism and my brother went to nothing. And when they ask/beg for us to reconsider, they understand why we can't. I'd feel like a hypocrite hanging out on the web built by those scary gay people and using my iphone designed by the crazy atheists. My parents are able to juggle those dichotomies. My brother and I are not. And our kids? Whew. They get their questions answered in a nanosecond on the interweb. As they grow up, it's getting harder and harder to pull anything over on them. It's a topic of discussion in our household for sure.

[albeto.]

Care to reword that?  Ignorant has such negative connotations, which may be your approach to the matter, but it's not helpful in the discussion. It's statements like this that were referenced in the other thread. I wouldn't say I was ignorant as I have read Genesis, rather that neither I nor the Church that teaches me, believe it's two different accounts. That's just interpretation, not ignorance.  Ignorance, in this case, seems to mean your interpretation is right and any others are wrong. 

 

Sure. The word "ignorant" refers to a lack of knowledge or familiarity. It's not being used as a schoolyard insult. I'm ignorant of the mechanics of thermodynamics, muslim theology, why my dishwasher is leaving gunk in the glasses and all kinds of things. If one has read the book of genesis and didn't note two diametrically opposing creation myths, then they are ignorant that two creation myths exist. If you deny the two opposing stories, that's cognitive dissonance at play, by matter of fact of what cognitive dissonance is - a psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously. The incongruous beliefs might be 1) the bible is accurate and reliable, and 2) the bible tells two tales. You can call it interpretation, but by virtue of the definition of these things, it's not. I suspect you would see this dynamic in a context that isn't personally and intimately dear to you, like another religion or the story line of a book you enjoy.

 

Let's look again at the creation stories just to simplify things:

 

Humans were created after the other animals. (Genesis 1:25-27)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

 

The first man and woman were created simultaneously. (Genesis 1:27)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

Animals ---> Man & Woman

 

vs.

 

Humans were created before the other animals. (Genesis 2:18-19)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

 

The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib. (Genesis 2:18-22)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

Man ---> Animals ---> Woman

 

The idea that the second story is a detailed account of the first only works if you ignore the timeline. That is to say, you dismiss what the bible says in one place in favor of a theology that puts emphasis on what the bible says in another place. If someone has read these things but are not aware of them, they are ignorant of them, they lack knowledge and familiarity with the two differing timelines, because they are clearly there. 

[PeachyDoodle]

Seriously? That's the position you're going to take??? :confused1:

 

I didn't say that anything I said was "proof." And I could turn your argument right back around on you, because you said essentially the same thing: "MANY scholars who do historical criticism..." There is no definitive proof that the Genesis accounts WEREN'T written down earlier, or that they WEREN'T inspired by God. You can't prove a negative. And yes, there is some faith involved, but after all, we're talking about religion here. I don't think the involvement of faith is a surprise to anybody in this discussion.

 

Perhaps the word believe is the problem. It is not the same kind of belief that one needs to believe that God is the author of the Bible. It goes back to the original discussion of whether evolution is a belief. It was agreed that well accepted explanation was better terminology. Historical criticism is usually done in very structured way using methods that are universally accepted to examine any ancient historical document. It is not something that someone takes on faith, and some scholars do disagree on some of the findings of other scholars. Just like in the sciences, there are peer reviewed papers that are open for discussion.

 

Hm, I don't think so. The fact remains that, well accepted or not, historical criticism can't *prove* any of its claims any more than other scholars can *prove* theirs. In the end, it's all a matter of a certain amount of faith. So "believe" is an accurate term in both cases. As you pointed out, consensus does not equal truth.

 

I do think, however, that it is intellectually dishonest to point out that "many" scholars believe one thing, without acknowledging that "many" others believe something else entirely. I was merely rounding out the dogmatic statement that YOU made.

 

Hmm. I don't understand what dogmatic statements you think I have made.

 

Okay, then.

 

As to the canon of scripture, there is good evidence that the New Testament writings were in fact considered to be inspired scripture by the early church well before the composition of the canon. Peter, for example, refers to Paul's writings as scripture in one of his own letters. So I don't think you can exclude the New Testament from 2 Timothy based on that argument alone. Even if you can, we ARE discussing the Old Testament here, aren't we?

 

Yes, the original discussion was about the Old Testament, but I was answering your specific claim about the New Testament. Again, the fact that other people consider any writings to be divinely inspired, doesn't necessarily mean that they are. There are many other religions that have "divinely inspired scriptures" but you probably don't believe in them.

 

And the fact that some people consider them to be merely human products doesn't mean they are, either. I don't think we're getting anywhere here.

 

[milovany]

Just wanted to bring to attention the needless use of the word ignorant in a discussion fraught these past days with insult and injury. Have a beautiful day, albeto.

[livetoread]

Hmmm, I'm looking into this because it is puzzling (and I just did a BSF study in Genesis so I can't believe it wasn't addressed because they are nothing if not thorough ;)). I'm guessing the land referred to here is not the whole earth, but the garden. The earth had form and plants, but God wanted to make a special place for mankind, his "very good" creation. This is totally a guess.

Maybe, except the verse says, "... when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb had yet sprung up for The Lord God had not yet caused it to rain upon the earth .... then The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground ..." It talks specifically about God planting a garden later and never gets into when the rest of the plants of the earth were formed - just sometime after is the assumption.

[Onceuponatime]

"I don't think we are getting anywhere here."

This I can agree on. :laugh:

[albeto.]

Just wanted to bring to attention the needless use of the word ignorant in a discussion fraught these past days with insult and injury. Have a beautiful day, albeto.

 

Using a word isn't "useless" just because it makes someone feel uncomfortable. I don't use it to insult or injure you or anyone, I use it because the word accurately identifies what's going on. If you would care to share how these two timelines can be interpreted as one, I'd be interested in hearing it. I suspect others would as well.

 

This explains the OP's problem, I think, in trying to understand why a literal creationist belief is so important for some christians. For some people, interpreting it as allegorical means other parts of the bible would be similarly interpreted as allegorical. Earlier in the thread the verse about sin entering through one man came up. If sin didn't enter through one man, then maybe the role of christ is allegorical as well.  Some people can say one is allegorical and the other is not, which is no different in my opinion than saying these timelines are the same - it's ignoring what is written to support what is believed. If that's not acceptable, and for some people it's not, then the allegorical interpretation of the creation myth would not be acceptable.

 

I think it's more than that, though. I think it's a matter of self-identity and finding ways to maintain a consistent self-identity in the midst of this cognitive dissonance. Take for example the two incongruous ideas 1) I am an intelligent, good person who believes the bible; and 2) intelligent people know general scientific information. A "young earth" isn't scientifically supported, it looks to outsiders as "foolishness." The believer can either embrace this (as they've been warned to expect it an not let it get them down), or they can challenge it and try and make their model sound scientific. This is Ken Ham's approach, and in the debate he touched on this ever so vaguely when asked about the necessity of believing a literal creation myth as written in Genesis. I recall his reply to suggest this isn't a salvation issue, but ultimately either one trusts god to be truthful in his word, or they don't. The implication of course is that if one doesn't trust god in his word, how can they have faith in christ?

[milovany]

I didn't say useless, I said needless, as in not needful, as in it's a choice, as in for the sake of kindness and peace a different word could have been chosen. No matter the text book definition, "ignorant" is a negative word especially in this context amd especially using it to describe Christians. I don't want to argue Scripture with you. My faith isn't intellectual (although not anti-intellectual either); it's experiential. How do I know the Genesis account is one? Because I go to church, light a candle and receive the Body and Blood of Christ; because I have the lives of the saints to read; because there's an icon I can kiss. Can't really chart that with arrows very well, eh? ;)

[TracyP]

 

Don't be surprised. There's a lot of things in the bible that christians physically read and yet are completely ignorant of. It's pretty common, ime. The cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias is why two people can read the same book and come away with completely different theologies. 

 

 

I  agree with this.

 

I know *many* people who have read Genesis (and/or other Bible books), yet when we have discussions they say, "It doesn't say that." A quick check often proves that it does. They don't have a different interpretation - they actually have NO IDEA what the Bible says. I completely believe them when they say they read it. It just didn't "click" for some reason. I don't claim to know what is going on in the brain, but I know it happens. I just had a conversation with somebody who claimed to have read Genesis 10+ times. She had no idea what I was talking about when I asked how she interpreted the story of angels impregnating human women. How do you miss that part? I have several stories like this.

 

I also am personally guilty of this. I teach Sunday School so I relearn for lessons. There are so many times that I read something I *know* I have read before but somehow I didn't grasp it. Reading about Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 is a recent example. I have read Hebrews many times, but I only recently grasped the story behind Melchizedek. This is slightly different, but still it was right there for me and I didn't pursue the meaning.

 

I don't find this offensive at all. I find it fascinating. I truly wonder what happens in the brain to make this possible. I also know some people are able to not understand something in the Bible, but sleep at night without it driving them crazy. I don't have this ability, so I also wonder if there is a brain difference. But I digress...

[Danielle1746]

:iagree: Thank you, Molly for putting my thoughts into words.

 

Me too.

[Jennifer3141]

 

 

I  agree with this.

 

I know *many* people who have read Genesis (and/or other Bible books), yet when we have discussions they say, "It doesn't say that." A quick check often proves that it does. They don't have a different interpretation - they actually have NO IDEA what the Bible says. I completely believe them when they say they read it. It just didn't "click" for some reason. I don't claim to know what is going on in the brain, but I know it happens. I just had a conversation with somebody who claimed to have read Genesis 10+ times. She had no idea what I was talking about when I asked how she interpreted the story of angels impregnating human women. How do you miss that part? I have several stories like this.

 

I also am personally guilty of this. I teach Sunday School so I relearn for lessons. There are so many times that I read something I *know* I have read before but somehow I didn't grasp it. Reading about Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 is a recent example. I have read Hebrews many times, but I only recently grasped the story behind Melchizedek. This is slightly different, but still it was right there for me and I didn't pursue the meaning.

 

I don't find this offensive at all. I find it fascinating. I truly wonder what happens in the brain to make this possible. I also know some people are able to not understand something in the Bible, but sleep at night without it driving them crazy. I don't have this ability, so I also wonder if there is a brain difference. But I digress...

 

 

 

 

The brain difference fascinates me too!

 

I had a discussion over the Apostle's Creed with my mom on Sunday. She went to church with us and her complaint was that we don't recite it. I explained at as a rule, UUs don't cite creeds and that for many of us the creed is really kind of dumb. The creed tells you how he was supposedly conceived. And how he supposedly died. But it mentions NOTHING of how he lived which for UUs is the important part. Jesus wasn't an amazing super god to us because he was born of a virgin - many of us don't care if he was or doubt that he was. For UUs, it was his life that counted.

 

I watched my Mom mouth the creed over lunch and then stare dumbfounded off into the distance.

 

She even laughed when I said, "Mom, remember in 6th grade when Michelle D. got pregnant and SWORE up and down she'd never had sex?!? If she had birthed a genius who could cure cancer, would the matter of how he was conceived count for anything or would we just rush my Dad to the hospital and swallow the cure as fast as our cars could get him there?"

 

My new computer doesn't like this board format at all. lol

 

 

[GSOchristie]

Maybe, except the verse says, "... when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb had yet sprung up for The Lord God had not yet caused it to rain upon the earth .... then The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground ..." It talks specifically about God planting a garden later and never gets into when the rest of the plants of the earth were formed - just sometime after is the assumption.

 

The problem here could be one of the Hebrew word for earth, when we translate earth into English, we get problems because we don't make a distinction, where they did.  So is the the Hebrew word for the promised land or global earth (or there are more)?  That's the premise behind Genesis unbound, the Hebrew words used for earth are not the same as english Earth.  I wish I could look into this further, but I have to finish school, I have been sick and blowing it off, but my kid is going to be so far behind I'm never going to catch up :).  Maybe tonight.  I am enjoying this discussion, I think it's important as Christians that we truly look at all sides of an issue, what secular people bring to the table and what Christians bring.  I think this is part of the whole "knowing God with all your mind". :)

[HRAAB]

There is an interesting book by historian Ron Numbers called The Creationists. It covers the history of the movement.

 

In YECism, there is a coherent arc or narrative that fits, not only with Genesis, but with later NT writings, especially Paul. God created a perfect world because God is good. God created perfect humans who were without sin, but God also gave those perfect humans free will. They chose to disobey, which brought sin into the world, and gave Satan the destructive power that he did not have before. Because death is the result of sin, humans were no longer able to enter into that eternal perfect relationship with God. Therefore, Jesus had to come and die as the sacrificial lamb, the perfect sacrifice, the substitute death, for our sins. Because of his sacrifice, humans were now able, once again to have an eternal, perfect relationship with God in heaven, if they so choose.

 

(Edited to say that God will also some day get rid of pain, suffering, and death on this earth for good, restoring the earth to its former Eden state).

 

Now compare that with what evolution tells us (assuming a creator deity). God created a world in which suffering and death were rampant from the get go. Creatures capable of feeling immense pain did so for millions of years for no apparent reason other than that's the way it was. Humans evolved through the same process, with species capable of complex thought, self-awareness, and rudimentary religious practices now extinct (Did God love them too? Any plan for their salvation?) Humans were created sinful. They never had a choice about their propensity to sin, because they were sinful creatures born into a sinful world. We are born separate from God, because that's how God created us in the first place.

 

I should add here that I don't want to get into the weeds of free will, but I do think much of our behavior is driven by forces outside of our free choice. That doesn't mean we can't change, but that we behave badly (sin if you will) because of our physiology interacting with our environment.

 

So here we are, messed up in a messed up world, because that's how God made us. So what exactly is the purpose of Jesus? He somehow saves us from the mess he made in the first place? How? And if there is some place we go after we die that allows us eternal, perfect communion with God, why not create our world like that to begin with? There is no Paradise Lost, if there is no Paradise to begin with. If God is capable of making us perfect, death-free, and in communion with him in heaven, why in the world, are we and all the animals suffering for millions of years? There is no answer to that.

 

I think this is part of why YECists often cling so fiercely to Genesis. It's not about Genesis, it's the whole plan of salvation and the character of God in question.

 

Thank you for your response.  Your answer seems reasonable and makes sense to me.  I take it you're not a YEC yourself?  Would others agree with this assessment.

 

 My library has The Creationists.  I'll be interested to read it.

[Saddlemomma]

And I'm not sure why Ken Ham thinks there was no death before the fall, is it because of the verse about God killing an animal to atone for their sin?

 

I used to be YEC. However, I'm now OEC/ID basically because of some research I've done and studying.  Some of the reasons YEC Christians believe in this idea is because of the following scripture:

 

Romans 5:12.  However, if you thoroughly read this verse, it has nothing to do with animals or creation.  The verse specifically states that death came to all men through sin.  So this verse is often taken out of context.

 

1 Co 15:21. Proponents of YEC often site this verse as stipulating that all death came through man.  Unfortunately they forget to site the following verse, 1 Co 15:22 which states that the aforementioned is a reference to human death - not all death.  Again, the preceding verse is taken out of context.

 

Gen 1:29-30. This command is often used to show that animals ate plants before the fall.  However, you need to ask who the writer was speaking to.  He was speaking to Adam and Eve - people, not animals.  Taking the verse out of context again.

 

Animals do not sin and are not resurrected so none of the above verses could apply to them and cannot, therefore, be used as proof that there was absolutely no death before the fall. There is plenty of evidence, through scripture, throughout the Bible to substantiate that death did occur prior to the fall and this dovetails nicely with the fact that carnivores did exist prior to the fall.  Some examples would be:

 

Gen 1:24-26 - God speaks of creating the "beasts of the earth after their kind".  The Hebrew word for "beasts" is Chayah (sp?) which occurs 127 times in 98 verses of the OT.  If you analyze the context of those 98 verses, most of the time it tells us nothing, but in 31 instances, the context of the verse makes it clear that the word "chayah" means carnivore (Gen. 37:20; Lev. 26:6; Ez. 34:5; etc).  In only 4 instances does it mean herbivore. Further, if you study the Hebrew roots of the words Adam used to name the animals, you would see things like: Lion = in sense of violence; hawk = unclean bird of prey; eagle = to lacerate.  These names would lead one to believe that Adam observed these animals in the action of killing their food.

 

I mean absolutely no disrespect for YECs.  I used to be one after all.  I just happened to start listening to STR.org and their common-sense approach to how to read the Bible for context and not to read just one Bible verse, but a whole section to ensure you are getting the Word in the proper context.  In doing that exercise, and some more research, I have come to disregard many of the sacred cows, so to speak, of evangelical thinking.  For instance, I no longer believe in the pre-trib rapture either - blasphemous I know.  But, these issues are things that really don't have anything to do with salvation and shouldn't be issues we fight about.  In fact, we should more easily come together as one body in Christ realizing that we all have different views and opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[[email protected]]

Kindly maintain civility.

 

Thank you.

 

Moderator

[WishboneDawn]

 

I mean absolutely no disrespect for YECs.  I used to be one after all.  I just happened to start listening to STR.org and their common-sense approach to how to read the Bible for context and not to read just one Bible verse, but a whole section to ensure you are getting the Word in the proper context.  In doing that exercise, and some more research, I have come to disregard many of the sacred cows, so to speak, of evangelical thinking.  For instance, I no longer believe in the pre-trib rapture either - blasphemous I know.  But, these issues are things that really don't have anything to do with salvation and shouldn't be issues we fight about.  In fact, we should more easily come together as one body in Christ realizing that we all have different views and opinions.

 

We read Romans last week in my EFM course and I was struck by how you needed not only to read Romans as a piece but have some knoweledge of literary terms and devices. Romans 1:26-27 is often quoted as a judgement against homosexuality. I'm not going to argue against that right now but if you read what came before and came after it becomes clear that Paul is shifting gears in his epistle into hyperbole, going overboard in condemnation against sins. He overstates his case and address far more then simply homosexual acts. Then comes Romans 2 where he delivers a neat slap across the face, making his previous hyperbole a feint to get across the point that none of us should judge because none of us are free from sins. And yet Romans 1:26-27 is used for just the purpose Paul was speaking against. 

 

People poo-poo that sort of thing thinking you should be able to simply plainly read the text but a plain reading should not be an uneducated one and surely most of the authors, Paul especially, had some education and some understanding of the literary tools an author had at his disposal. A truly literal meaning of the Bible means adhering to the meaning of the words and text. Isolated quotes generally do just the opposite. 

 

All that to say I agree with you. :D

[albeto.]

I didn't say useless, I said needless, as in not needful, as in it's a choice, as in for the sake of kindness and peace a different word could have been chosen. No matter the text book definition, "ignorant" is a negative word especially in this context amd especially using it to describe Christians.

I don't use the word to insult or injure you or anyone, I use it because the word accurately identifies what's going on. 

 

I don't want to argue Scripture with you. My faith isn't intellectual (although not anti-intellectual either); it's experiential. How do I know the Genesis account is one? Because I go to church, light a candle and receive the Body and Blood of Christ; because I have the lives of the saints to read; because there's an icon I can kiss. Can't really chart that with arrows very well, eh? ;)

What I'm taking away from this is

1) "Animals ---> Man & Woman" is not different from "Man ---> Animals ---> Woman."

2) You have personally fulfilling experiences within the context of your faith.

 

The difficulty I'm having in knowing what to do with this reply is that by virtue of all we know of the world around us, one doesn't affect the other. Surely there are people in your own church who also experience personally fulfilling experiences within the context of their own faith (including lighting candles, participating in the sacraments, reading stories of the saints, and kissing icons) and yet know that the Genesis timeline is not one. 

 

In any case, perhaps you can see why I use the word "ignorant" in this context. It seems to me that some of these ideas are taken on faith without working through the details, ie, being ignorant of the details by virtue of simply not being familiar with them. I don't just mean you, but in general I think that happens. I don't mean you are an ignorant person. I just mean in the context of reading the bible, many people do read the same stories over and over and come away without knowledge or familiarity of what those stories really do contain (like the timeline of the creation of Adam and Eve). I hope that clears up my use of the word.

[mytwomonkeys]

The thing with the word ignorant though, Milovany isn't discussing a topic that she knows nothing about (as in your example of your dishwasher). And from what I gather, most of the individuals that shared regarding their interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 have actually studied the bible. Being ignorant is to say someone is uneducated about the topic. It's hard to read that & assume it was meant to be anything less than a jab. Ykwim?

[livetoread]

Thank you for your response. Your answer seems reasonable and makes sense to me. I take it you're not a YEC yourself? Would others agree with this assessment.

 

My library has The Creationists. I'll be interested to read it.

I used to be. Then I was an OEC, then a Christian that accepted evolution, then a vague, Tillichish "Ground of All Being" theist, then finally an atheist. So ask me anything, lol!