1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Literal Creation Story

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by trying2understand, Oct 23, 2003.

  1. neal4christ

    neal4christ New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank-you very much, Ron. You cleared up some misconceptions in my mind. See? Wasn't that easy?

    God Bless,
    Neal
     
  2. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,

    *sigh* I give up. Statements like "24-hour periods are established by God, not the sun" defy using your noggin that God gave you. Yes, God established 24-hour days by ESTABLISHING THE SUN! Our God is a God of order, and things work because God wanted them to work that way. So, we have 24-hour days because God put the sun where it is. Time existed before the earth had its sun, but there were not "days" that equaled "24-hours" because that unit of time is dependant on the sun's location to the earth. You are trying to argue that time existed before the sun; great, I agree. And 24-hour periods existed before the sun; great, I agree. However, 24-hour "days" would be meaningless without a sun. If God wanted to be talking about literal 24-hour days, he would have made the sun first so that it would make sense.
     
  3. neal4christ

    neal4christ New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand what you are saying, Grant, but evolution, in its current form, is an explanation of origin. All things are a result of chance, not God. Evolution, as a theory, is not just the changing of animals over time (though that is all the word itself means). It encompasses origin and offers an explanation of it. In its present form, evolution is fundamentally contrary to the notion of God. However, it is interesting that even from the evolutionist frame of mind, the evidence seems to point to a singular event that they cannot explain "why" it happened.

    In Christ,
    Neal
     
  4. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neal,

    The only argument that evolution can make to origin is that something came from nothing, or that something has always existed. Thus, it's either "spontaneous generation," or that the universe has infinitely existed.

    Both are obviously unprovable theories because we can never prove that "nothing exists" because it is by nature a contrary statement, and since we are not infinite, we cannot prove an infinite regression in the universe. Now, there may be people who push these theories, but these theories I see as separate from the "evolutionary" theory. These people simply adopt this theory because it works well with their own, because they wish to deny the existence of God. However, it can be just as easily used to show God's perfect design. ;)

    Just some thoughts. I won't say that I subscribe to it, but I wouldn't discount it with solid evidence, either. Science is not contrary to faith, and faith is not contrary to science.
     
  5. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, I might add that the Big Bang Theory can be traced to a Christian in its earliest proposals (a Catholic, I think, though I'd have to verify that). What better example is there that there is a God than that this infinitely dense singularity was caused by the Word of God. [​IMG]
     
  6. neal4christ

    neal4christ New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand that you see them as separate. However, having obtained a four year degree in a field that deals with a good bit of science and math from a state university, which you attend one now, I can say with a fair level of confidence that it comes as a whole package. Origin is assumed when evolution is talked about. Religion is totally separate from science (I have had this said by a professor in a class of 500). While we may understand the distinctions, in its present form, the scientific establishment does not.

    I do agree that science is not contrary to faith and vice versa.

    In Christ,
    Neal
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the earth wasn't round, would it change your faith in God??? What kind of question is that?? The Bible teaches that the creation account is literal. Why hypothesize about a non-reality?? Why ignore the evidence and the revelation of God? I have no need to. If that is too educated for you to accept then I am not sure what to say about it. I really don't have many more answers about it. It seems pretty clear unless you have an agenda otherwise.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know where in the world you got this from. I don't know of anyone who says Scripture is easy to understand in all of its parts. The RCC doesn't even believe that the believer that interpret Scripture on their own. ACcording to the catechism, the only allowable interpretation is that given by the church and her bishops.

    It does take a correct understanding of language to know what God said, just as it takes a correct understanding of language to know what anyone else says. Apart from understanding langauge, communication is impossible. You also have to understand idioms. Just go to a foreign and talk about how it is raining cats and dogs. You will find some very strange looks. You see, the things that I have said above are common sense. You must understand language to understnad communication.

    I don't know why you would think that nmost versions of Genesis 1 are false based on what I have said. You will have to explain how you came to that conclusion. I believe most versions of Genesis are very accurate although I have not read them all. And you don't need to be a biblical scholar. You simply need to study God's word.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet the text of Genesis seems to contradict you. God talks about day and night before he talks about the sun. Your unwillingness to accept that causes you to demand that Genesis 1 is wrong. I simply reject that. I don't think God was limited by the sun. You assume that the sun came first. I don't. I assume that the day came first.

    I agree.

    This is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow. Huge jump ...

    Why do you propose to tell God what he must do to make time?? Does time exist without a watch?? Not by your logic used here. You insist that God could not establish 24 hour days becuase there was not cosmic watch to measure it by. I completely reject that. The only reason there are 24 hour days is because Christ is upholding all things by the word of his power, because he is holding all things together.

    24 hour periods existed before the sun because God said so. Why is that so hard?? We marvel at the unbelief of those who cannot accept supernatural explanations of miracles. When someone says that Christ didn't really turn water into wine, or didn't really feed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish, we call on them to accept the supernatural and to understand that our God works miracles. Yet when Genesis 1 calls on us to believe the supernatural, you think we should not. You think we should limit our understanding to purely naturalistic realms. I reject that because it is inconsistent with the way God worked in Scripture and because it is inconsistent with the meaning of the words of Genesis 1.

    Why not accept that the God who spoke the world into existence meant what he said?? If God had wanted to tell us he created the world over longs periods of time, there were many ways to do it, all of which would have been more clear than what he said in Genesis 1. If he had wanted to tell us that he did it in 24 hours, there is only one unambiguous way to do it ... the way he did it in Genesis 1. I do believe a literal creation is a matter of believing God's word. I don't think it is necessarily a matter of salvation. I have a hard time believing how someone who has studied the issue can be a studied unbeliever. I can understand unbelieving ignorance. I cannot understanding informed unbelief. If you reject Scripture's supernatural account of creation and demand a naturalistic understanding, how can you demand that someone accept Scripture's supernatural account of the resurrection?? At some point, there has been a huge disconnect in your thinking.
     
  10. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    I said:

    And 24-hour periods existed before the sun; great, I agree. However, 24-hour "days" would be meaningless without a sun.

    You said:

    You insist that God could not establish 24 hour days becuase there was not cosmic watch to measure it by.

    Really. I didn't say that.

    You have yet to understand me, and its not a lack of my word usage to explain it, because its clear that you didn't even read my words based on your response.

    EDIT: Please describe a day to me when there is no sun. How much of the day is dark and how much is light? What is the difference in evening and morning without the sun?
     
  11. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,

    You said:

    The Bible teaches that the creation account is literal.

    Then you said:

    It seems pretty clear unless you have an agenda otherwise.

    Does it teach it, or does it "seem pretty clear?" And if it teaches it, please tell me where. I don't think I have a "how to interpret Genesis 1 and 2" guide in my Bible.
     
  12. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    And there is your problem. I never said that Genesis 1 is wrong. I wish you'd stop lying about me.
     
  13. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? Because my Bibles say that God created the animals after Adam in Genesis chapter two. If I was alone, stranded on an island, and found a Bible for the first time, I might wonder what's going on. Now, if I also had the Hebrew Bible, and I knew Hebrew, maybe I could clear this up. But there are doubts that that will happen. So how is this man alone on the island supposed to reconcile this? There IS a contradiction in this Bible: Animals come first, then man comes first. What is he supposed to believe about the Word of God, since you say he must accept it to be literal?
     
  14. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Pastor Larry,

    I figured I should make some clarifications.

    The Bible teaches that the creation account is literal.

    Nowhere does the Bible say "The creation account is to be read literally". Rather, it is to be read literarily as all literature should. Some literature, when read literarily, is read exclusively literally (i.e. strict prose). Other literature, when read literarily, is read exclusively figuratively (i.e. allegory).

    You're approaching the text with the assumption that the Creation narrative is to read strictly literally, when the ancient author probably did not have that intention.

    The RCC doesn't even believe that the believer that interpret Scripture on their own. ACcording to the catechism, the only allowable interpretation is that given by the church and her bishops.

    This is a misrepresentation of the relationship between the Magisterium, the faithful, and the Bible. All Catholics are certainly allowed to read Scripture and interpret Scripture individually (that is precisely what all of the Catholics on this board have been doing all along). However, the Magisterium always has the authority for the ultimate interpretation when the buck needs to stop somewhere. Without this authority, we are left to our own sectarian ways.

    Regarding the Creation account, I would suggest approaching the text for the genre that it falls in, which is that of a mashal: a work of the utmost artistry and sophistication that stems from the wisdom tradition of ancient Israel. (1)

    1. George E. Mendenhall, “The Shady Side of Wisdom: The Date and Purpose of Genesis 3,” in A Light Unto My Path, ed. HN Bream, RD Heim, and CA Moore (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974).

    I would propose to you that the ancient Israelite author was not concerned in the least bit in how creation was created but in who was the Creator, what was created, and why creation was created.

    Who: Elohim or Yahweh
    What: Creation: cosmos and man, the crown of the cosmos
    Why: So that God may share in a covenant relationship with his creation, esp. with man

    When we approach the text with the how in mind, I believe we actually do violence - great harm - to the text and the original author's intent.
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I deeply appreciate the "agenda" of the RCC as it is revealed on this thread. Notice that right-down-the-line each RC poster is obligated to confuse/obfuscate and cloud the clear text "as if" it was oh-so-hard to understand.

    Yet - no RC historian has ever argued that the exegetical view of Genesis 1 and 2 that INCLUDES the intent and obvious meaning to the primary - contemporary audience - is anythinhg OTHER than the meaning that we SEE it given in Exodus 20:8-11.

    Given that bold fact - undeniable throughout all of history - you must give them a lot of credit for being so determined to cast a late 19th and 20th century "spin" on a document written 1500 B.C.

    Oviously - the literal "day" meaning for "yom" is assigned by God's OWN Exodus 20 summary of the Genesis 1-2 event. In fact He freely equates the day at Sinai with the Day "yom" of the Genesis 1-2 "account".

    But wait - the case is even worse for the RC position here.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Chapter 1 through 2:4 is a "sequential timeline" with each event outlined in a specific sequence over a specified unit of time. Its purpose is to account for the origins of all life, the weekly cycle and the day of Worship that God gave mankind - in explicit literal detail.

    Chapter 2 - beginning with vs 5, gives no timeline. Rather it is a rationale for marriage. It describes the case before marriage and then shows the institution of marriage as well as the obligation of the first family - Adam and Eve, to serve God with specific focus on His divine command regarding the tree of life. Chapter 2 includes details not given in the previous sequential timeline model.

    But why am I thinking that you are really not looking for this kind of answer at all?


    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    T2U points out that what the RCC is opposing is a "Strict LITERAL understanding of the Genesis account". He argues that we should not read the "details" of what is "actually written" in the text and believe that they are "literally true".

    Carson on the other hand - hopes to limit the damage that this does to the integrity of the RCC's view of the Gospel and the Bible as follows...

    #1. Carson can not bring himself to just say "The Genesis account is TRUE" because in fact - he does not believe it at all.

    #2. The internally-conflicted contradictory position of the RCC doctrine is well noted and Carson's attempt to divert the point - only exposes the flaw more fully.

    Arguing AGAINST the Bible's account - but then trying to "salvage" the bits and pieces that the RCC "needs" in the Gospel is simply to explode the foundation for the Gospel and then argue "but the Gospel is still true".

    Such failed logic as the RCC offers here - would only be compelling to someone that ALREADY abandoned the integrity of the Word of God. It could never be compelling to someone with an objective view of either science or scripture. And certainly does nothing but negate the Gospel AND the NT statements that appeal TO the "very details" that the RCC claims are false.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    In the Genesis "account" God explains to mankind - how all life on this planet came into being, how the sun and moon came into being, how the seas, dry land and plant came into being, why we owe our worship to God, what the origin of our 7-day weekly cycle is, mankind's perfect creation in the form of exactly TWO human beings, and the details of how mankind fell from perfection, in a perfect sinless deathless world.

    The RCC simply adds "none of those explanations are true BUT the end point remains the same, we are here, man is fallen and God is our creator".

    So "God's explanation for HOW that has come about" - that is to say His "account" - His "explanation" for how these fundamental truths came into being is the only part that is "a lie" according to the RCC.

    Now if you go to a RC message board (and even if you keep talking about this subject on this thread) you eventually get to the part where merely "choosing to Believe God's explanation for the fundamental truths" is to take a position that for the RCC can only be ridiculed and scoffed at. Hopefully not as blatantly on this forum than on the distinctly RC ones - but still ---

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. Frank

    Frank New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 are both quoted by Jesus Christ in Mat. 19:4-6. Jesus obviously attributes both chapters as divine. Surely, one would not accuse Christ of not understanding the perfect harmony of God's will. If chapters one and two are not harmonious, Jesus does not understand the divine will of God for marriage. This should lay to rest the utter nonsense these two accounts are contradictory.
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Carson's speculation is not credible to any student of Hebrew history. There is no question that Jews before the NT period accepted the Genesis "Account" as literally true.

    There is no question but that the SUMMARY that it is given in Exodus 20:8-11 MAKES it an EXACT equivalence to the "Yom" at the foot of Sinai.

    "SIX DAYS shall YOU LABOR and do all your work but the Seventh day is the Sabbath...FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD Created the heavens and the earth... and RESTED the Seventh day"

    The exact equivalence that God draws in His own summary of the Genesis 1-2 "Account" between the day at Sinai and the day in Genesis 1-2 is not possible to miss. Even for the most blinded devotee of another "Agenda" - you would simply have to turn that blind eye to the text of Exodus 20 and cling to the traditions of man - to get it any other way.

    Impossible to miss.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
Loading...