Question For Evolutionist Baptists

1. What is there in the text of Genesis that would lead you to believe that Moses intended his statments about the creation to be metaphorical?

2. Would you believe the Genesis account of creation was metaphorical if you had never heard of the theory of evolution?

3. Why do you think that when the Genesis account of creation is mentioned later in the Bible that it is always mentioned it a historical and non-metaphorical way. For example Exodus chapter 20, Mark chapter 11 and Romans chapter 5?

4. Do you also interpret the other accounts in Genesis, such as the offering of Isaac, to be metaphorical?
................................................

There is a great deal of information in the Bible that is not intended to be taken literally, and I believe you accept that also. For instance, when the sun was said to stand still during Joshua's battle, we know that if anything stood still, it was the earth's rotation, rather than the movement of the sun, since the sun only has an apparent but not real movement around the earth.

How do you explain the above? Either you must contend, incorrectly, that in those days the sun orbited around the earth, or you must take the view that the inspired writer was mistaken in saying that the sun stood still. You may contend that the writer was only describing events in terms that could be understood then, even though it does not accurately describe what happened. So which is it Mark? Was the bible correct in saying that the sun stood still, in total contradiction to what is known about the relative movement of the earth and sun, or was the account metaphorical? If it was metaphorical, that is all that christian evolutionists are saying about the origin of mankind. If on the other hand, you contend that the account of the sun standing still was entirely literal, then you are contending something that flies in the face of reality. Because if the sun stood still, and the earth continued to rotate, there would still be day and night on the usual schedule. So to make any sense at all out of the account, you must reject a strictly literal interpretation of that part of the bible.

 

"Metaphoric", while discriptive, is not the right word. Scholars do not claim that Genesis 1 is a "parable" or is "metaphorical". Rather they claim that it is in a literary class of its own, the nearest category being saga. Hebraic scholars refer to Gen1 as mytho-poetic. In the very nature of the case, Genesis 1 cannot be strictly historical, in the normal sense of the word. Clearly no man was around to record the events. There is no statement in Genesis (or indeed the whole Bible) which says how man learned the events of Genesis 1.

It should be noted that you assert that Moses wrote Gen1. This is not conclusive. Evidence suggests that Moses compiled most (but not all) of the Pentateuch (some of which was preexisting), but there is nothing to suggest, biblically or otherwise, that Moses singlehandedly wrote them.

I have always understood Gen1 to be non-literal truth, rather than literal fact.

They refer to the account, not to the event. Their reference to the account does not make the account factual, any more than Jesus referring to Jonah makes the fish a whale. Jesus says Jonah was in the belly of a whale and not a fish, even though, in Jonah, it is recorded as being a fish, not a whale (both the OT Hebrew and NT greek have separate distinct words for "whale" and "fish".

Some, yes, some no.

 

There is no such person!
What amazes me is someone saying I believe the Bible and Jesus Christ but yet say they believe that we came from primates (monkeys).
If you want to think we evolved from primates, please do not disgrace the Bible by saying you believe in Jesus Christ. You do not believe in Jesus Christ in Bible but your own manufactured version of him. Do not feel left out though there are many religions that have made their own Jesus that will not be able to save them. The only Jesus that can save you from your sins is the true Jesus Christ of the Bible.
You can not serve to masters.
(note: Editorial "you & I" used)
By believing in evolution you deny Jesus of the Bible!
Col 1:16-FOR BY HIM WERE ALL THINGS CREATED, THAT ARE IN HEAVEN, AND THAT ARE IN EARTH, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, WHETHER THEY BE THRONES, OR DOMINIONS, OR PRINCIPALITIES, OR POWERS: ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM, AND FOR HIM.
Eph 3:9-AND TO MAKE ALL MEN SEE WHAT IS THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE MYSTERY, WHICH FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD HATH BEEN HID IN GOD, WHO CREATED ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST.

 

Yes there is. I'm one.

One's interpretation of Gen 1/2 is not a litmus test for one's state of salvation. Additionally, it is not in the Baptist Distinctives.

Come to think of it, there's no requirement that, to be saved, you must even own or read a Bible (it helps in your Christian walk, though). Many folks on this board were saved before they even set foot in a church for the first time.

I don't believe we evolved from primates. I believe that it's possible for humans (which are primates, btw) and apes to be evolved from a common ancestor. If that's what happenned, then God's hand was in it.

Oh, and for the record, I believe in Jesus CHrist. If you don't like me saying so, take it up with him.

[ October 24, 2003, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

One slight clarification: people are primates.

A primate is a mammal with hands and fingers, with arms and shoulders capable of brachiation, nails instead of claws, binocular vision, and characteristic dentition.

I know, I know, everybody already knew that. But...

It just struck me when I read the phrase "evolved from primates" instead of "evolved from lower primates" or "evolved from other primates." Sounded odd.

Tauf, ex-evolutionist

 

Matthew:
Good post. I really struggle with the notion that we can have true faith in God, yet deny Him of one of His attributes: that He is able, and, in fact DID create everything from nothing. Faith cometh by the Word of God folks, NOT, "Origin of The Species."

Tanker:
Come now, you are using that tired old argument that Darrow used in, "The Monkey Trial." Every Meteorologist will say, "Sunset at..., Sunrise at..." Do they know that the sun doesn't move? Of course they do. They speak in language that everyone understands. So does God in His word.

 

That is why I used parenthesis "monkeys" to be specific.

I never said anyone had to read the Bible to be saved but to believe in the one true Jesus Christ of the Bible. Not a God who used monkeys that evolved into humans. That Jesus is a false one and will not be able to save you.

Thanks Tauf, I should have been more specific a lower intelligent primate such as monkeys.

JohnV,
If your Jesus Christ used monkeys to evolve mankind I will have no problem taking anything up with him.

Mankind, especially, was created to live forever. Adam and Eve were
created "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27), the holy, sinless,
eternal, deathless Life-giver. That image is now marred by sin, but
originally it was not so, for the Creator called all in that world "very
good" (Genesis 1:31), and placed in it the Tree of Life (Genesis 2:9).
What sort of world could the God of the Bible call "_very_ good"? At
the very least, the original world must have been far different from our
present one.

God did place in that world an opportunity for both man and woman to
prove their obedience to their Creator and return His love. As Creator,
He established (and only because he was Creator did He have the
authority to establish) the rules for proper conduct, as well as the
penalty for disobedience, He declared, "Of the tree of the knowledge' of
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: For in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17).

The lie of Satan, however, has always included the idea that there is
no penalty for sin. In tempting Eve to disobey, "the serpent said unto
the woman, ye shall not surely die" (Genesis 3:4). As we know, the lie
was believed, the penalty for sin denied, and sin entered the world.
But even though the authority of the Creator was disputed and ignored,
that authority remained, and He acted in His holy justice. The
resultant curse on all of creation was the curse of death, and touched
not only mankind -- "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return"
(Genesis 3:19) -- but the animals (v. 14), the plants (v. 18), and even
the earth itself (v. 17). At that point, the "creation was made subject
to vanity (or futility)" -- the "bondage of corruption." Indeed, "the
whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now"
(Romans 8:20,21,22).

 

This why you can't truly believe in both evolution and Jesus Christ. Well one reason anyway.

Evolution and the Bible most seriously conflict (their respective views of death, which are central to each viewpoint). If
evolution (or even just the concept of an old earth, with death and
fossils predating man's sin) is correct, then death is natural; death is
normal; death produced man. Most importantly, in this view, death is
not the penalty for sin, for it _preceded_ man and his sin. But if death
is not the penalty for sin, then the death of Jesus Christ did not pay
that penalty, nor did His resurrection from the dead provide eternal
life.

While belief in creation and the young earth may not be essential for
salvation (many Christians wrongly believe and do many things the Bible
teaches against), if evolution is right, if the earth is old, if fossils
date from before man's sin, then Christianity is wrong! These ideas
destroy the foundation for the Gospel and negate the work of Christ on
the cross. Evolution and salvation are mutually exclusive concepts.

[ October 24, 2003, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Matthew 16:24 ]

 

Do people really take seriously the idea that God created the world in Six days and then rested on the Seventh Day and instructed His creation to do so as well.

If this is a true foundation of Creation, why then do so many people look for excuses to say that the Seventh Day Rest is no longer valid.

Isnt this creation story the Foundation of the book of Genesis and the Bible. Why then would one of the seven days be no longer valid if those events really took place? Particurly as God said that He sanctified it and Consecrated it to all. Maybe the attack on the Rest day is in fact a part of the plan to disrepute the creation account in the Bible.

 

Ben,
Thats a whole different thread, but has soemthing to do with the 1000 year reign with Christ. Do a search on "sabbath" and I am sure you will find it.

 

There is no such person!</font>[/QUOTE]Matthew,

I agree, there are no Christian evolutionists. By using that term I refer only to those who claim to be Christians while yet believing in evolution. If you have read the posts from the past few days you will have seen that I have asserted a man who believes in evolution can't possibly be saved.

I apologize if the use of this term caused any misunderstanding.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Romans 14:4 (NASB)
Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

 

I'm simply going to fall back to what JohnV said. They are referring to the account.

That does not necessarily imply literal. The people of that day also could not have understood the actual events as we can today. Not that they were dumb, they just did not have the background. The account was sufficient to communicate the spiritural message. For that matter, the account today is sufficient to communicate the spiritural message. We, today, also have the background to understand the event.

No. As I have said before, I was once YEC. I thought the creation account was literal. I thought that people who advocated an old universe, an old earth, and evolution were sorely mistaken. But then I began to look at the evidence. At first, I stuck with just looking at evidence for a young earth. I was shocked, dismayed, and angered by what I found. The arguments were so bad, so flawed, that I could not believe that an honest Christian would advance them. Their tactics were to misrepresent science, to quote scientists out of context, to willfully misunderstand scientific material and scientific methods, to slander and attack those with whom they disagreed, to knock over unrelated strawmen, and so on. I cannot express how angry I was that these people would justify that type of behavior in the name of God. I don't care how noble your cause, the ends do not justify the means, especially when you are trying to convert people.

But the reverse question deserves an answer. If you did not hold your particular interpretation of Genesis and if youhad actually examined the evidence, would you accept the theory of evolution and the findings of other modern sciences? This is where the debate centers for me. If you can honestly answer "No" then you should be able to present conclusive evidence from astronomy and geology and biology and paleontology and so on of a young earth and a young universe. I have yet to see such a thing. Helen is the one YEC on this board that makes a good go at it but she has yet to be convincing to me.

In general, no. Though I likely do not always look at everything the same way as you. The Bible is the written part of God's revelation to man. The material collected in the Scripture is meant to tell us about God, His relationship with his people and his creation, how He would wish that we live, how we can obtain salvation, how we should deal with others, and so on. The dealing of God with men on a personal basis are very important. So, for example your Isaac question, I would tend to believe that was true. Now, as part of telling the tale, there is a great deal of history of the Jews woven in. I do not know enough about Middle Eastern history to give an informed appraisal. I would think that in general is is a reasonably accurate history, though I would think that it could be tinged with some of the exaggeration that victors typically do when recording their great victories and their heroes. I know that will be a terrible admission on my part to you, but I am trying to honestly answer your question. Along the same line, I think it is also likely tinged a bit by the beliefs and knowledge of the day. IMHO, the people of that time had a view of the world as flat and round and set upon the deep and that some of the references in the Bible reflect that. It is not to say that the Bible is wrong, just that they were recording things as they saw it. Just an example, not meant to stir debate. But it is the views and limitations of the people who wrote the Bible that tells me that you should be careful about making hard scientific facts (and history to a lesser extent) out of what they had to say. Before this is brought up later, I'll go ahead and say that this also tells me that the flood was local and not global. Grill me if you wish.

Could you please answer my question about how you would view evolution absent your interpretation of the creation account? I think I know what you have to say and I wish you were informed enough to back it up. That is why I encourage everyone interested in this debate to look hard at the facts. If you stay YEC, then at least you should have the evidence necessary to back your claim rather than simply asserting.

 

That is quite presumptuous. There are more than those two possibilities. How about this, the sun actually stood still. How is this even remotely even eyebrow raising. The God of creation can cause His creation to behave in any manner He sees fit. Common sense tells you that the most likely possibility is that the sun "standing still" is from the observers point of view. An untraliteral reading is NOY unreasonable. It is a far cry from reading the Bible with a little common sense than to call this concept of the sun standing still as the only way to read it literally. That is not what literal interpretaion is all about.

 

Of course the sun stood still; the sun ALWAYS stands still relative to the Earth. No miracle is needed in that case.

 

Science shows us that the sun is always moving in space. Earth is moving right along with it. I don't see how we cannot take "the sun standing still" as literal, unless we believe that everything, all of the galaxies, the planets, the stars, and the sun stood still, which I suppose could happen as well.

I think it was a figure of speech myself.

 

The sun did stand still; it stood still in the sky. If you had been there with a sun dial you would not have noticed any movement of the shadow during that time.

I have a question for the supposed Christian evolutionist. Where is the transitional fossils? Darwin, I have read, thought that one day the fossil evidence would overwhelmingly prove his theory. It is my understanding that near the end of his life, Darwin was disappointed by the lack of fossil evidence concerning his own theory.

 

Well, wait a second, though. Let’s look at how Paul refers to Adam and the events in Genesis 3:

If the account is not factual, then why, pray tell, am I condemned for the trespass of a mythical character? The truth of the Gospel hinges on the fact that there was a real Adam who really did sin. If the work of Christ in redemption must be real for the Gospel to be true, doesn’t it follow that the events surrounding the fall must also be real?

Was Adam real but the garden fake? But how could the garden be fake if the sin was eating from a prohibited tree in the garden? So, really, the garden had to be real and those trees have to be real. And of course, Eve had to be real. Later on, in 1 Timothy 2:13 Paul says that Adam was formed first and then Eve. In 1 Cor. 11, he says that woman was actually made from man, just like it says in Genesis 2. If Eve was born just like every other woman, Paul could not have said it like that. If these are not real, God ordained events, how can Paul base doctrine on them?

Frankly, the theological problems involved in a non-factual/historical understanding of the opening chapters of Genesis are much more serious in my mind than the apparent difficulties of a YEC position.

Andy