Fundamentalist Creationism?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Deacon, Sep 5, 2002.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    I don’t want this to become an argument for or against 6-day creationism! It’s been over done in the Creation/Evolution forum down below in the basement. [​IMG]
    I do want a discussion of key fundamental doctrines associated with creationism. [​IMG]

    I noticed in a recent “fundi” post that one person had included 6-day creationism as a fundamentalist stand. (The books that started the fundamentalist movement “The Fundamentals”, actually stated many different viewpoints on this topic)

    I have a problem with congregations that include in their ‘statement of faith’ that they “believe in creation as expressed in Genesis one and two”. That doesn’t tell me anything! Many congregations are leaving “origins” entirely out of their ‘statement of faith’ (I agree with this).

    Try this, make a list of key doctrines associated with creation. ***** accout inconsistant with literal interpretaion removed***Perhaps general creationism,

    AND YES, I BELIEVE IN THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD AND IN A LITERARY INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE!

    [ November 16, 2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
     
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Personally, if it were up to me and I were making the rules, I would include a 6X24 Creation as a "fundamental" of the faith.

    HankD
     
  3. Justified

    Justified
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deacon,

    Ask yourself this: When God created trees, how many rings did they have?

    How old was Adam, when God breathed into him the "Breath of Life"?

    How old were the animals, at creation?

    When God created, He created with age already in His creation.
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Romans 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:

    Death, The Word of God states that death, as a historic event, started with Adam and his sin.

    No other exegesis of Genesis 1-3 other than a 6X24 Creation allows for this.

    HankD

    [ September 05, 2002, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  5. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    RO 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

    Did these fossils become fossils AFTER the creation of man? Seems that this would be the case because of what Paul wrote!?

    Either that or you can just accept what scripture states; all was perfect until the midnight snack got out of hand. ;)

    Another point re: the earth's age; did not everything have some appearance of age upon creation? Adam was created a fully grown functioning human as was Eve. What age would they have "APPEARED" if you could have seen them 5 minutes after they were created? 30, 40, 100??

    Same with the earth; some "APPEARANCE" of age would have been there, would it not?

    Re: the methods of calculating the earth's age: how do we know there is any accuracy there? Seems the only reason for such calculations are to dis-prove the creation account.

    Take the half-life of radioactive materials for instance. Many of these are reported as having half-lives in the range of thousands of years. Now in all honesty, how can that be proved? Also, can science determine whether the half-life is linear or logorithmic? This one fact could make a vast difference in the age calculations!

    I have as many questions for science as there are for creation, so until something can be PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt, I'll stick with what God told us! [​IMG]
     
  6. Alex

    Alex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    RO 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

    Did these fossils become fossils AFTER the creation of man? Seems that this would be the case because of what Paul wrote!?

    Either that or you can just accept what scripture states; all was perfect until the midnight snack got out of hand. ;)

    Another point re: the earth's age; did not everything have some appearance of age upon creation? Adam was created a fully grown functioning human as was Eve. What age would they have "APPEARED" if you could have seen them 5 minutes after they were created? 30, 40, 100??

    Same with the earth; some "APPEARANCE" of age would have been there, would it not?

    Re: the methods of calculating the earth's age: how do we know there is any accuracy there? Seems the only reason for such calculations are to dis-prove the creation account.

    Take the half-life of radioactive materials for instance. Many of these are reported as having half-lives in the range of thousands of years. Now in all honesty, how can that be proved? Also, can science determine whether the half-life is linear or logorithmic? This one fact could make a vast difference in the age calculations!

    I have as many questions for science as there are for creation, so until something can be PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt, I'll stick with what God told us! [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Good points! [​IMG] What about the first two verses and their tie to the rest in time? I have surgery tomorrow, so don't know how soon I will feel up to answering. :D

    God Bless.........Alex
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    So to answer my own question based upon the above answers, I would say that one specific fundamental doctrine or belief related to Creation would be a historical Adam and Eve (Romans 5:12,14-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,45).

    Another doctrine would be the origin of sin and Gods redemptive work.

    **** commenst removed that are not consistant with literal interpretation****
    Any other doctrines related to creation that we agree are essential for a fundamentalist to hold?

    [ November 16, 2002, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fundamental issue of Genesis is that God created. That would be like trying to include what day of the week the Last Supper took place on. Traditionally, it's Thursday, but there's historical evidence that it could have been earlier in the week. But does it matter what day the Last Supper was? No. It only matters that the Last Supper took place.

    **** comments removed that are not consistant with literal interpretation****

    [ November 16, 2002, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    [/QUOTE]What if God compressed what looks like millions of years of work into a 24 hour period?

    HankD

    [ November 16, 2002, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Other key doctrines that we might agree on may include physical and material impermanance (evolutionist would disagree), A spiritual world separate from our physical realm [​IMG] . (Naturalists/evolutionists would again disagree).

    :mad: Come on guys, this isn't the Creation/evolution forum, I'd like to see key doctrines. [​IMG]
     
  11. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    We can agree that:
    1) There is a Creator
    2) He created out of nothing.
    3) There was a historical Adam and Eve
    4) The origin of sin and Gods redemptive work
    5) A spiritual world distinct from our physical world.
    6) Physical and material impermanence

    Evolutionists would disagree with every statement. True, some Christian origin theories do not believe all of the above doctrines. Theistic evolution has a problem regarding a historical Adam, and perhaps the origin of sin. These forms of creationism would not be acceptable for a fundamentalist believer.

    I rarely see an examination of doctrinal positions discussed during debates on creation. We can agree to disagree if the doctrine is kept pure. We can argue our points, and still be fellowshipping brothers. I may even be wrong about my position, but I’m not a heretic.

    What I’m trying to get at in this thread is that fundamentalism can include various groups that aren’t necessarily considered “conservative Christian”. Fundamentalism isn’t a fixed set of defined traits more than a fixed set of doctrines. The KJVO advocates would (strongly) agree with statements concerning our inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. As do all fundamentalists. (Some of us) can agree to disagree.

    We also need to separate culturalism from fundamental doctrines. Fundamentalism isn’t a conservative American Baptist set of values. Organ music doesn’t make someone a fundamentalist any more than Black leather Bible covers make a Christian. Dress fashions and suits are cultural traditions. I can dress in shorts, come to church and still be a fundamentalist Christian! Don’t tell me it isn’t true. (Confession time-I once wore shorts to church once myself; just to say I did it-It was in Bermuda :D :cool: at a pastor-friend’s church).

    Make sure the Gospel is pure, God’s Word is preached and sinners are brought to repentance.
    **** it's all true****

    [ November 16, 2002, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
     
  12. Justified

    Justified
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    When you go with anything other then 6/24, you open a gap for other false doctrines as well!

    And you can imagine what those doctrines would be!

    If you can't, then open your eyes to our world today! :eek:
     
  13. VoiceInTheWilderness

    VoiceInTheWilderness
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you are looking for consolation in the absence of doctrines that would be influenced by your view of "Old Earth" creation then maybe you aren't so sure about the validity of your position.

    Deacon if you say you affirm in Literal interpretation, wouldn't your GAP view of creation tend to open the door for other scriptures to be interpreted with - A GAP - ?

    Personally I see no need to interpret Gen. 1:1-2 in any other way than 6/24, and especially since so much modern day science supports a young earth. [​IMG]
     
  14. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    I guess that's why I asked the question. Help me rather than accuse me. [​IMG]

    And I never said anything about a "Gap theory". (I did read about it in the 1970's but it was pretty much rejected for scriptural and scientific reasons by then). All I said was I was an old-earth creationist.

    ***** comments removed that were inconsistant with literal interpretation****

    [ November 16, 2002, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
     
  15. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Probably a poor argument! Particularly if you’re a dispensationalist. How do you interpret Daniel 9’s seventy weeks? Isn’t there a gap at the 69th week for the church age?
     
  16. VoiceInTheWilderness

    VoiceInTheWilderness
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's wrong with God leaving around a few mysteries?

    Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
    [​IMG]
     
  17. VoiceInTheWilderness

    VoiceInTheWilderness
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not saying that there aren't other passages that would warrant a need for a - Gap- but the general rule of interpretation is to interpret a passage literally unless there is good reason to infer an allegory or some figurative language.

    You said it yourself, the rest of Gen. 1 would give us enough context for 6/24. Why look for any Gaps?

    Besides if in fact; ( I'm guessing what you seem to be driving at ) there are no other major doctrines that are influenced ( with the exception of maybe interpretation and inspiration ) with your view, what difference will it make? ;)

    [ September 07, 2002, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: A voice crying in the wilderness ]
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The problems with messing around with the text of Gen 1 and 2 to fit the current fad in some circles today -- are many.

    #1. The authors meaning and the meaning to the primary audience is obvious and well understood. By "altering" the text to fit some view in today's audience violates exegetical principles of Bible study.

    #2. God Himself (as if we did not believe He authored the Gen 1-3 text) gives a summary of the 7 days of creation in the 4th commandment. There he equates the "Yom" day of creation with the "Yom" day of Israel at Sinai. No scientist today believes that our day is any different from the days of Sinai 3500 years ago.

    Even Orthodox Jews today - (who accept evolution out of modern tradition - not the Bible) admit that the Exodus 20 sequence that God gives - provides a lock-step summary of the Gen 1-2 events in a way that prevents any misunderstanding.

    #3. The NT authors also make mention of the details of Adam and Eve - the 6th day event of the creation of Adam first and then Eve.

    The details themselves are appealed to in the NT - it is clear that the primary audience expected the details of the Gen 1-2 account to be valid.

    Having said that - it is significant that the 4th day of creation God is said to have created "TWO lights in the sky" - not zillions. That means that although He is the creator of the stars also - the Gen 1 account does not insist that the number of lights in the sky created on the fourth day itself - be more than the number it gives -- "two".

    In Christ,

    Bob

    [ November 15, 2002, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
     
  19. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hopefully I can clarify a few things here, since this is my professional field (science editing, and primarily for the YEC group) as well as being the wife of the man who is doing the major research into the speed of light issue which does verify a very young creation....

    I'm going to go down the posts as they occurred and catch points as I go, so they are numbered as I see them:

    1. Deacon, you said you believed in the inerrant word of God. Good. The clear intent of Genesis 1 is to express the steps of creation as they occurred in six normal rotations of the earth, or six days. This is referred to in Exodus 20:11 as the reason for the Sabbath.

    2. Justified, I know this sounds funny, but at creation, the organisms were created mature, but that has nothing to do with age at that point, only with what we would presume as age since that is the only way we see maturity now.

    3. Alex, there is no gap in Genesis. Dr. Bernard Northrup, a Greek and Hebrew scholar and good personal friend explained it to me as a grammatical function not expressed clearly in any translation. The way the Hebrew actually goes, the meaning of verses 1 and 2 are like this:
    "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth, it was formless and empty"....etc. The second sentence takes one of the elements of the first and expands upon it. It is an immediate explanatory follow-up and not a separate occurrence. Verse 2 tells us the condition of the earth at the time of its creation as referenced in verse 1.

    4. Any fossils from a presumed gap period would have been totally decimated and covered by miles of sediments by Noah's Flood. In fact, the conditions of Noah's Flood probably did not even allow fossilization. The vast majority of fossils are probably from after the Flood.

    5. Just-Want-Peace -- half-lives can be quite accurately determined, actually, in terms of the rate of decay we see today. The sticking point with radioactive dating, however, is that something called "Planck's Constant" is in the denominator of every decay rate equation and Planck's Constant is equal to one over the speed of light, or h = 1/c. Thus, the speed of light is effectively in the numerator of each decay rate equation when h is cancelled out, thus tying the decay rate to the speed of light. If the speed of light were higher in the past, and both data and theory show that it was, then the decay rates were faster as well. This means that atomic time -- which is measured by atomic processes which are linked to light speed -- is quite different from orbital time, or our calendar time, which has stayed constant through time. A much fuller explanation, on both lay and professional levels, can be found in the various articles on my husband's webpage here:
    www.setterfield.org
    Go into the science articles and enjoy! The first one you might be interested in is the layman's summary I wrote as his editor under my name before I was married to him: Helen Fryman. That is the simplest explanation on the site and the others are various degrees of more involved.

    6. Alex, God bless you in your surgery and guide the surgeon's hands and heal you quickly. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

    7. Johnv, the fundamental issue of Genesis is that God created exactly the way He says He did. He has given us enough to guide us into knowing where the truth is in our scientific research.

    8. Back to Deacon -- theistic evolutionists, such as Johnv and Paul of Eugene do not disagree with some of the things on your list.

    9. Bob, you hit a number of salient points. Very well put.

    [ November 15, 2002, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The 70 weeks has no gap. All bible prophecy is contiguous time spans - to do it any other way is to make mush out of the timeline.

    Imagine if I said "you have just two weeks to finish that project. But there is an undefined
    gap of time between the last two days in the second week". It makes two-week concept void.

    That kind of inflicted-gap system, is never used anywhere in scripture.

    BUT - is there a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2?

    There is no timeline spanning vs one and vs two - so it is certainly possible. However that is the only place that does not have a timeline in Gen 1 through 2:3.

    But given the iron-clad summary God Himself makes of this in Exodus 20 - using the same language as Gen 1:1

    "For IN Six days the Lord Made the Heavens and the Earth" Exodus 20:11

    as compared to Gen 1:1 "In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the Earth".

    So no gap between vs 1 and 2 when Exodus 20 is taken into account.

    We can certainly limit the scope of "heavens" and argue that since the birds flew in the midst of the heavens in Genesis 1 - and the Sun was also in the expanse of the heavens - that the term applies to space - our solar system on the one hand - and our atmosphere on the other.

    In Christ,

    Bob



    In Christ,

    Bob

    [ November 16, 2002, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...