|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 11, 2004 23:22:26 GMT -5
In the years that I've been participating in debates with proponents of young Earth creationism, one thing I've never seen satisfactorily explained is why it is so important to them that a historical, literal interpretation of the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 be true. It has nothing to do with biblical infallibility, because any interpretation, literal or figurative, where the events remain true maintains that infallibility. It is certainly not a salvation issue, because salvation has nothing to do with recgnizing any interpretation of those pkmtyolpages as true. It has nothing to do with Jesus' divinity or truthfulness, because any interpretation of those pkmtyolpages that remains true is consistent with His divinity and maintains his truthfulness.
So why this insistence on a literal interpretation? Those who object to the acceptance of evolutionary theory as accurate do so using entirely faith-based arguments. At the same time, many Christian denominations have recognized that such objections are unnecessary, since the theory does not contradict any doctrine essential to a Christian faith, and have issued statements recognizing that scriptural and scientific truths need not be mutually exclusive.
The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the validity of evolutionary theory, but to discuss why individuals interpret these pkmtyolpages in the manner they do. I interpret them as figurative because at the same time that my scientific studies have convinced me beyond any doubt that the presently accepted model of the origins of the universe, Earth, and life are accurate, my Christian faith demands that those pkmtyolpages remain true in a manner consistent with that evidence.
Regardless of your interpretation of these pkmtyolpages, why do you hold that interpretation of true, and why do you believe the interpretation of others to be false?
--TDv2.0
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 12, 2004 11:29:03 GMT -5
I believe it's a bit of both. I think that since God is outside of time, "1 day" could mean a 1000, 1,000,000, etc. As far as the line of Adam and Eve, i do not find it hard to believe that they lived extremely long lifespans. They were closer to God, they came from "paradise" (a plane of existence that was either outside of time, or time was very different). When they were exiled to this "world", still retaining some divine quality, and still being closer to God than either you or me (they would converse with God), it seems logical that in adapting to this existence, it might have taken many generations for them to age more quickly. I remember a Biblical verse that seems to tie into this; My life-giving spirit will not remain with them forever....I interpret this to mean, they wouldn't live as long; More rapid aging perhaps being an effect of not having this live-giving spirit.
Wrapping it up, I believe some things in Genesis are literal (or very close) and other things in Genesis are a human interpretation of literal events. Many things in Genesis are like bits and pieces of events that happened so long ago that it seems choppy, incomplete. There are very interesting parts that are very mysterious, and leave you with more questions than answers. Genesis is one of my favorite Biblical books
God bless
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Jan 12, 2004 11:42:48 GMT -5
In the years that I've been participating in debates with proponents of young Earth creationism, one thing I've never seen satisfactorily explained is why it is so important to them that a historical, literal interpretation of the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 be true. It has nothing to do with biblical infallibility, because any interpretation, literal or figurative, where the events remain true maintains that infallibility. It is certainly not a salvation issue, because salvation has nothing to do with recgnizing any interpretation of those pkmtyolpages as true. It has nothing to do with Jesus' divinity or truthfulness, because any interpretation of those pkmtyolpages that remains true is consistent with His divinity and maintains his truthfulness. So why this insistence on a literal interpretation? Those who object to the acceptance of evolutionary theory as accurate do so using entirely faith-based arguments. At the same time, many Christian denominations have recognized that such objections are unnecessary, since the theory does not contradict any doctrine essential to a Christian faith, and have issued statements recognizing that scriptural and scientific truths need not be mutually exclusive. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the validity of evolutionary theory, but to discuss why individuals interpret these pkmtyolpages in the manner they do. I interpret them as figurative because at the same time that my scientific studies have convinced me beyond any doubt that the presently accepted model of the origins of the universe, Earth, and life are accurate, my Christian faith demands that those pkmtyolpages remain true in a manner consistent with that evidence. Regardless of your interpretation of these pkmtyolpages, why do you hold that interpretation of true, and why do you believe the interpretation of others to be false? --TDv2.0 Traffic, Isn't it about time that you gave this a rest? People have spent time explaining to you why they disagree with your false interpretations of Genesis 1-11. You say that the pkmtyolpages are only to be interpreted as being "figurative" which is as good as saying that they have been "made up" or "concocted". You have said that you accept the Bible as being true, that none of it is untrue. Yet your treatment of the Book of Genesis says the opposite. You have agreed that God doesn't lie, so why have you implied that He made up the Genesis accounts of the six-day Creation, the Fall of Man, the Global Flood of Noah's day, and the Tower of Babel? The Bible, the whole Bible, is the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. It is God's Truth and He never lies. Evolution is a lie. I have given you the reasons why and you have chosen to reject them. You say you are a Christian - well, only you and God know that. That's all I have to say. Matter closed. Andy.
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jan 12, 2004 14:51:10 GMT -5
I guess that you'll have to give this a rest, TD. Apparently, this matter has been closed.
|
|
|
Post by Himmel on Jan 12, 2004 16:24:10 GMT -5
I admit I'm always a little confused about Genesis, , so I voted other. While I do believe in most of it, I'm never quite sure where fact ends and parable begins. In other words I'm not sure what to take litterally. God bless, Louise
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jan 12, 2004 16:54:02 GMT -5
Mostly myth with some historical basis. But that does not diminish the presence of the Holy Spirit in the process of its coming into being as a work of literature and its power to touch the soul.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 12, 2004 17:44:35 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "People have spent time explaining to you why they disagree with your false interpretations of Genesis 1-11."
Why do you continue to define my interpretation as false, when you have nothing to support that definition?
"You say that the pkmtyolpages are only to be interpreted as being 'figurative' which is as good as saying that they have been 'made up' or 'concocted'."
No, it is simply as good as saying that they should be interpreted figuratively. I have not so much as implied that the pkmtyolpages have been simply "made up" or "concocted." Furthermore, when viewed in the context of the physical evidence, it becomes evident that a literal interpretation of those pkmtyolpages cannot remain true.
"You have said that you accept the Bible as being true, that none of it is untrue. Yet your treatment of the Book of Genesis says the opposite."
Once again, interpreting a pkmtyolpage as figurative is not the same as interpreting it as false. If the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 are properly interpreted as figurative, this interpretation renders those pkmtyolpages no less true than the parables used by Jesus.
"You have agreed that God doesn't lie, so why have you implied that He made up the Genesis accounts of the six-day Creation, the Fall of Man, the Global Flood of Noah's day, and the Tower of Babel?"
I have never implied that God lied in those pkmtyolpages, but merely stated that I believe that He used them as parables to reveal truths that His audience would have been otherwise incapable of comprehending. Again, if a parable by definition conveys any measure of untruth as you claim, then you defining Jesus' words as at least partially untrue.
"Evolution is a lie."
Aside from the fact that this thread is not meant to discuss the validity of evolutionary theory, but rather the interpretations of Gen. 1-11 held, neither you nor any other proponent of the young Earth creationist model have presented a shred of evidence to back up your claim.
"I have given you the reasons why and you have chosen to reject them."
Because none of the reasoning you have employed in your definition of evolutionary theory as false has been in the slightest bit logical or relevant to the validity of the theory.
"You say you are a Christian - well, only you and God know that."
Gee, how nice of you to concede that. Once again, the doubts you voice concerning my salvation are entirely unfounded.
Himmel - "While I do believe in most of it, I'm never quite sure where fact ends and parable begins. In other words I'm not sure what to take litterally."
My general rule is to interpret a pkmtyolpage as literal whenever possible, and adopt a non-literal interpretation only when a literal one would contradict either the physical evidence or another pkmtyolpage of Scripture. Truth will always be consistent with truth; if the truth revealed by the physical evidence is that a global flood has never occurred in the Earth's history, then the flood narrative must be re-interpreted to be consistent with this evidence.
--Traf E. Traf
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 12, 2004 18:14:58 GMT -5
IMNotsoHO, it's a matter of comfort zones. Taking the whole thing literally and shutting out any possibility of having to figure it out on their own is a nice, head-in-the-sand comfort zone for some people. They don't have to study and figure out what is literal and what is figurative, they don't have to "half" agree with atheists who are evolutionists, they don't have to debate the "mythology" issue; they simply say, "If you don't agree that it's literal like I believe then you don't know God, " and the discussion is over.
Basically, they say, "It's literal!!" then put their fingers in their ears and go, "La la la la la la," when you try to help them understand their faith is not in jeopardy if they read it figuratively.
|
|
|
Post by kingsdaughter on Jan 12, 2004 18:28:36 GMT -5
I believe that Genesis is true and gives us our foundation and the character of God for our beliefs. It Tells us of a God that c reated a world when he had no need of one, he created the Sun and the moon and seperated them into day and night, then he spoke the plants and animals into existence, and then he created man so He God, could have a relationship with him, even though he really didn't need to . If God didn't create the world or us what need do we have for him? How does order ever come from chaosis? How did whales and bats develope radar? It gives us Gods history and shows us how he has worked for the good of man. It shows his consistancy and reliability. When He tells us something will happen if we do this and not this it happens. He tells us how we came about no other religion on the earth does this, why? He tells us how the universe came about and how he hung the moon in space, no other religion does this why?
He is the foundation, the begining and the end. Without this we have nothing substantial to believe in and we would not even exsist to have this discussion. YSIC Pam
|
|
|
Post by hounddawg on Jan 12, 2004 19:48:30 GMT -5
IMHO..if one word of the Bible is false or not literally true,,then all of it is a lie.You either believe or you don't.
|
|
|
Post by WatingforHim on Jan 12, 2004 19:50:24 GMT -5
IF you don't believe in the Genisis account, I have a suggestion, get saved, go to heaven and then you can ask for yourself.
Why do people find it so hard to accept the fact that LIFE on earth is not so old? But the earth itself, yes it is ancient. Genesis says that the earth was void and without form, that simply means empty of life.
|
|
|
Post by hounddawg on Jan 12, 2004 19:55:31 GMT -5
If Genesis is part fable,part truth..then wouldn't it stand to reason that the rest of the Bible might be the same thing? If God was able to raise His Son from the dead after three days in a tomb,then it stands to reason that speaking the world into existence as Genesis states would be no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 12, 2004 21:13:55 GMT -5
IMHO..if one word of the Bible is false or not literally true,,then all of it is a lie.You either believe or you don't. God first, Bible, then tradition
Bibliolotry
Definition: The term bibliolatry is derived from the word idolatry, or the worship of idols. Thus, bibliolatry refers to the worship of the bible - taking it so seriously and so literally that it becomes the entire focus of religious devotion, even to the exclusion of everything else. Fundamentalism is often accused of engaging in bibliolatry.
I fear that, when Christ comes, if He does one small thing that goes against the teachings of "Bible-believing" Christians, they will shake their own bibles in his face, just as the pharisees did. Their bible too (their interpretation), became more important than God Himself. So, they failed to recognize him. Only his sheep will know him. It will be the same at his second coming; His sheep will know him.
God bless Another note; The bible is the written testament of the word of God Christ is the WORD Christ comes before the bible When Christ did different things, like break the Sabbath, condemn plural marriage, etc This shocked the pharisees (self-righteous men that they were) When Christ comes again, don't be the pharisees. God bless
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 12, 2004 21:33:53 GMT -5
kingsdaughter - "How does order ever come from chaosis?"
By achieving very local decreases in entropy at the expense of a larger overall increase in entropy. Just look at a snowflake to see that order arises from randomness all the time.
"How did whales and bats develope radar?"
A few million years of natural selection did the trick.
"He tells us how we came about no other religion on the earth does this, why?"
While Genesis certainly tells us that God brought us into existence, to claim that it tells us how God brought us into existence requires that one wholly ignore the physical evidence which demonstrates that our species came into existence through entirely different means. Since truth will always be consistent with truth, disregarding this evidence mandates that God be lying to us, either through the physical evidence He has left us or through Scripture. As far as the bit about no other religion on Earth doing that, to claim that Christianity holds a monopoly on creation mythologies is more than a little naive.
"He tells us how the universe came about and how he hung the moon in space"
Again, to claim that the universe came into existence in the manner described in Genesis requires that one wholly ignore the physical evidence that demonstrates otherwise.
hounddawg - "IMHO..if one word of the Bible is false or not literally true,,then all of it is a lie."
Think about what you're saying here. Jesus used figurative language frequently in His teachings; if one mandates that any non-literal pkmtyolpage in the Bible invalidates the entirety of the Bible, then Jesus has done so through His own words.
"If Genesis is part fable,part truth..then wouldn't it stand to reason that the rest of the Bible might be the same thing?"
If one interprets a biblical pkmtyolpage as figurative so that it remains consistent with the truth revealed through the physical evidence, why should that imply that another pkmtyolpage should be so interpreted without that evidence?
WaitingforHim - "Why do people find it so hard to accept the fact that LIFE on earth is not so old?"
Because the physical evidence demonstrates that life has existed on Earth for over 3.5 billion years. The existence of life is hardly a new phenomenon.
--BDT
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Jan 12, 2004 21:55:21 GMT -5
There are several reasons why I believe The Genesis Account of Creation is literal:
1. I earnestly seek to follow The Holy Spirit's guiding when it comes to my personal beliefs, and, as I have prayed, and been sensitive to His instruction, I believe He has led me to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. I esteem His instruction far above the evidence that would support an alternate belief.
2. Nowhere in Scripture is it even hinted that Genesis 1-11 is a parable. Quite the contrary in fact.
3. The Genesis Account of Creation is mentioned as fact throughout the entire Bible, including The New Testament. Nowhere is it referred to as a parable. You'd think, if it was, God would let somebody in on this little "secret." To dismiss it as a parable would be to admit that the authors of The New Testament, who were under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit, and even The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, were misleading in referring to it as factual.
4. Scientific theories are based by drawing conclusions and at best are given the status of probabilities, possibilities, suppositions, may haves, could haves, would haves, should haves, and a host of other interjected thoughts from the scientific world. Then, based on all these probabilities, possibilities, suppositions, etc., scientific theories are reported as proven facts, when, in reality, they are nothing more than the scientists drawn conclusions.
5. Evidence can and has been misleading in the past, causing scientists to draw wrong conclusions. I believe one day, Darwinism will be a rejected idea, like a host of other "truths" the scientific world once heralded as fact.
6. I don't allow outside influences to sway my interpretation of God's Word. It really doesn't matter to me what is being reported in the secular world.
I can probably list a few more given the time. These are just some of the reasons off the top of my head. I'll probably add to these later.
|
|