Evolution vs YEC

[seanD]

I’m a Gap theorist. I believe there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 of an unspecified period of time, and unknown episode of events (perhaps even periods of evolution). I believe Genesis 1:2, and beyond, is expressing a “replenishing” of life forms on earth. In other words, the life forms we currently see were created about 6,000 years ago, but not the earth itself. My belief of GT (Gap Theory) isn’t an accommodation to science, necessarily, but a belief I base on scripture and subtle hints and clues in other areas first and foremost. As a result, however, I do have the luxury of speculating that there were ages, not “transitional stages,” of previous life forms here on earth prior to our current age of Gen 1:2 and beyond. The greatest attestation against evolution, IMO, is the inconsistency of the fossil record, which is the hard evidence. Though the fossil record arguably shows a progression from simple to complex, the stages are abrupt and not transitional, as well as the problem of “living fossils” -- many living forms alive today, but are also found in fossils dating millions of years old, with no change at all to their structure or form. Yet the fossil record seems to concur with GT, in that there are patterns, or ages, of appearances of life forms -- i.e. Cambrian, Jurassic, et al -- as well as cataclysms that wiped out most life forms, as opposed to gradual stages of life forms. Though the fossil record is a wrench in the traditional gradualism machine, it is also a wrench in the traditional Christianity machine (specifically YEC).

My question is to advocates of YEC. How do you explain these stages of fossils found in the strata, and the geological dating? Do you assume science is simply wrong or being collectively manipulated as deceptive tools of evil? Or do you believe that these stages of life forms were somehow manipulated by either God or Satan to look somewhat progressive in a range of millions of years of time? And if you believe the latter, then why did God allow this?

[seanD]

No reponses?

Is it that YECers are afraid? Is it that you turn a blind eye to facts? Or perhaps you're basing your hope on faith, that science is wrong or being misled? Whatever the case, is it that you're afraid to admit it? Or is it that you just don't care?

[jo7241974]

I’m a Gap theorist. I believe there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 of an unspecified period of time, and unknown episode of events (perhaps even periods of evolution). I believe Genesis 1:2, and beyond, is expressing a “replenishing” of life forms on earth. In other words, the life forms we currently see were created about 6,000 years ago, but not the earth itself. My belief of GT (Gap Theory) isn’t an accommodation to science, necessarily, but a belief I base on scripture and subtle hints and clues in other areas first and foremost. As a result, however, I do have the luxury of speculating that there were ages, not “transitional stages,” of previous life forms here on earth prior to our current age of Gen 1:2 and beyond. The greatest attestation against evolution, IMO, is the inconsistency of the fossil record, which is the hard evidence. Though the fossil record arguably shows a progression from simple to complex, the stages are abrupt and not transitional, as well as the problem of “living fossils” -- many living forms alive today, but are also found in fossils dating millions of years old, with no change at all to their structure or form. Yet the fossil record seems to concur with GT, in that there are patterns, or ages, of appearances of life forms -- i.e. Cambrian, Jurassic, et al -- as well as cataclysms that wiped out most life forms, as opposed to gradual stages of life forms. Though the fossil record is a wrench in the traditional gradualism machine, it is also a wrench in the traditional Christianity machine (specifically YEC).

My question is to advocates of YEC. How do you explain these stages of fossils found in the strata, and the geological dating? Do you assume science is simply wrong or being collectively manipulated as deceptive tools of evil? Or do you believe that these stages of life forms were somehow manipulated by either God or Satan to look somewhat progressive in a range of millions of years of time? And if you believe the latter, then why did God allow this?

Hi SeanD,

I'll jump in here. I will state a few a things first so you'll know where I am coming from. I tend to believe in the young earth. I do not believe in the big bang theory. Nor do I believe in darwinism. I think we could be off in our calculations by maybe a few thousand years at most - due to gaps in lineage. But I do not believe that the meaning of days and years in God's terms are different from what humanity recognizes as days and years. To jump from a difference of a mere few thousand years to a difference of billions of years is quite a leap. At the end of the day, it is not going to make a difference in anyone's salvation to believe one way or the other.

The only problem mankind can have is to look for answers concerning God in the science of man. I believe that is where man can become lost. It is necessary to keep things in perspective. Certainly we have been given talents, and we should be involved in increasing our talents for the good of man. Science has been an excellent path to improve the quality of life, knowledge, technology, medicine, etc.

For as much good that has been done, there is also the reverse. I believe a lot of the theories developed in science are incorrect. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum - so I don't need to describe my reasons for believing this way. I'm just adding my thoughts to your post. I do believe that fossil dating is flawed. And because it is flawed, trying to explain anomalies becomes an exercise in futility. That is why I don't believe fossil dating has thrown a wrench in YEC.

Hopefully this will be enough to get a discussion going.

[seanD]

I don't believe in the big bang either, nor do I believe in evolution, as the fossil record capsizes this theory. The problem is that even assuming radiometric dating is wrong -- which is always a possibly -- paleontologists find clear patterns in the fossil record. Population, cataclysm, mass extinction, followed by sudden population explosion, cataclysm, mass extinction... and on and on. Paleontologists like Niles Elderedge argue that this occurred at least five times in the fossil history.

This is where YEC has a problem, as these cataclysms and re-populations are not recorded in Genesis, other than the flood.

[RBerman]

No reponses?

Is it that YECers are afraid? Is it that you turn a blind eye to facts? Or perhaps you're basing your hope on faith, that science is wrong or being misled? Whatever the case, is it that you're afraid to admit it? Or is it that you just don't care?
Calling people "chicken" because they're not engaging you is a sure way not to get engaged. Perhaps YEC are not responding because they don't think the Unorthodox Theology forum is the appropriate place to be discussing the matter. Those are my two reasons for not responding, anyway.

[franktalk]

I am not a YEC or GT or anything else. Because I don't know what happened in the past. I do believe in the Bible so by default I think the earth is but 7800 years old. Now how God did this I do not know, I also allow that I could be wrong in my interpretation of scripture.

But I have studied this subject and I will be happy to describe some alternative thoughts on the subject.

In order for the fossils to form that we see we need major catastrophic events. This is necessary so the bones and flesh do not rot away. So we are looking for some major events in Biblical history. The Fall is not described in detail but later we find out that the earth did not have rain before the flood. So I will assume that the period between creation and the flood did not have major geologic events. So the first one would be the flood. Obviously a major event. After the flood rain would carve out large areas in the fresh sediments from the flood. These may have been rapid enough to make some fossil layers. The earth was adjusting to new weather so this may have shifted things around quickly. The second major event would come from the time of Peleg when the earth was divided. Now some people think this was the time when God made the people working on the tower of Babel speak with different languages. It may mean just what it says. The earth was divided. If so then the breakup of Pangea if done rapidly would cause major sunamis which would flood coastlines around the world. Even Job speaks of watching the sea. At the bottom of the Grand Canyon is a layer of marine fossils. They appear jumbled up like they were part of a debris layer rather than a sea floor. Who knows but they can be viewed in this light. Coal seams may have been created by massive waves as well. If the Atlantic ocean was made quickly then the sea floor spreading would expose the heat from the core to the sea water. The warm water would cause hypercains. The massive shift in the surface of the earth would torque the earth and shift its day and axis. We know this is true because we have actually measured variations in both of these by recent earthquakes. Check NASA data for these facts. The axis of the earth has been different in the past. If the axis was more tilted when we had a hot ocean we would have massive storms roaming over cold poles. Good conditions for a quick ice age. Again Job speaks of snow and ice, but modern temperatures in this area don't support ice and snow except on a rare basis. Job's reference to dinosaurs may be due to migration caused by change in weather. Quick massive snow storms might explain the frozen mammoths. The snow melt and glacier action could have been quick. A quick shifting in major plates would cause quick changes in weather and a rerouting of water. If the plates moved quickly then the mountains caused by plates running into each other would create mountains by rising land or by volcanic activity. Now in this view of the earth's history there are lots of opportunity for quick burying of dead animals leading to fossils. Who knows if this is true.

What I know is not true is the main assumption of geology. This assumption is uniformitarianism. Peter makes it clear that all who believe this are wrong.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Ever since I read this passage I refuse to allow uniformitarianism to direct my view of the past. This goes for atomic dating as well. It also relies on a uniform past. I can not say for sure what happened in the past but I know that Peter was right.

[seanD]

I am not a YEC or GT or anything else. Because I don't know what happened in the past. I do believe in the Bible so by default I think the earth is but 7800 years old. Now how God did this I do not know, I also allow that I could be wrong in my interpretation of scripture.

But I have studied this subject and I will be happy to describe some alternative thoughts on the subject.

In order for the fossils to form that we see we need major catastrophic events. This is necessary so the bones and flesh do not rot away. So we are looking for some major events in Biblical history. The Fall is not described in detail but later we find out that the earth did not have rain before the flood. So I will assume that the period between creation and the flood did not have major geologic events. So the first one would be the flood. Obviously a major event. After the flood rain would carve out large areas in the fresh sediments from the flood. These may have been rapid enough to make some fossil layers. The earth was adjusting to new weather so this may have shifted things around quickly. The second major event would come from the time of Peleg when the earth was divided. Now some people think this was the time when God made the people working on the tower of Babel speak with different languages. It may mean just what it says. The earth was divided. If so then the breakup of Pangea if done rapidly would cause major sunamis which would flood coastlines around the world. Even Job speaks of watching the sea. At the bottom of the Grand Canyon is a layer of marine fossils. They appear jumbled up like they were part of a debris layer rather than a sea floor. Who knows but they can be viewed in this light. Coal seams may have been created by massive waves as well. If the Atlantic ocean was made quickly then the sea floor spreading would expose the heat from the core to the sea water. The warm water would cause hypercains. The massive shift in the surface of the earth would torque the earth and shift its day and axis. We know this is true because we have actually measured variations in both of these by recent earthquakes. Check NASA data for these facts. The axis of the earth has been different in the past. If the axis was more tilted when we had a hot ocean we would have massive storms roaming over cold poles. Good conditions for a quick ice age. Again Job speaks of snow and ice, but modern temperatures in this area don't support ice and snow except on a rare basis. Job's reference to dinosaurs may be due to migration caused by change in weather. Quick massive snow storms might explain the frozen mammoths. The snow melt and glacier action could have been quick. A quick shifting in major plates would cause quick changes in weather and a rerouting of water. If the plates moved quickly then the mountains caused by plates running into each other would create mountains by rising land or by volcanic activity. Now in this view of the earth's history there are lots of opportunity for quick burying of dead animals leading to fossils. Who knows if this is true.

What I know is not true is the main assumption of geology. This assumption is uniformitarianism. Peter makes it clear that all who believe this are wrong.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Ever since I read this passage I refuse to allow uniformitarianism to direct my view of the past. This goes for atomic dating as well. It also relies on a uniform past. I can not say for sure what happened in the past but I know that Peter was right.

Interesting.

I definitely agree that uniformitarianism -- though this was apparently abandoned by geologists some while ago -- has been thoroughly debunked.

[seanD]

Calling people "chicken" because they're not engaging you is a sure way not to get engaged. Perhaps YEC are not responding because they don't think the Unorthodox Theology forum is the appropriate place to be discussing the matter. Those are my two reasons for not responding, anyway.

Right. Not only would the churches of the world crumble from the sheer inappropriateness if one were to respond to a subject not in the right section, but I've noticed fundamental conservative Christians like yourself have never responded in this blasphemous section before.

[franktalk]

Interesting.

I definitely agree that uniformitarianism -- though this was apparently abandoned by geologists some while ago -- has been thoroughly debunked.

The blanket use of uniformitarianism is now gone. But what we have now is a check of all other options first, before a catastrophic event will be considered. If any feature can be explained away by using any odd theory, that will be accepted first. Those explanations are not examined closely because it fits with most accepted views of geologist. But a catastrophic event better have tons of evidence and will be examined under a microscope.

Just because someone says they are changed does not mean they are actually changed. Lip service is what is happening. Go tell a geologist the Grand Canyon was caused by a flood. See what the response is. It does not matter if you think the canyon was caused by a flood or not. But when they say it is not then point out another canyon 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon was carved out in a few days. When they poo poo that tell them all about Mount St Helens and the mud flows.

Between the Bretz flood and Mt St Helens the geologist had to open the door to catastrophic events. But in this light have we seen a re-examination of the 100,000's of past conclusions made under uniformitarianism? No, and don't hold your breath waiting.

[RBerman]

Right. Not only would the churches of the world crumble from the sheer inappropriateness if one were to respond to a subject not in the right section, but I've noticed fundamental conservative Christians like yourself have never responded in this blasphemous section before.
I'm here from time to time. But your sneering tone doesn't inspire me to continue this particular conversation further. But you seem to have found others to take up the gauntlet, so take heart.

[seanD]

I'm here from time to time. But your sneering tone doesn't inspire me to continue this particular conversation further. But you seem to have found others to take up the gauntlet, so take heart.

I don't necessarily want to debate this issue, just see what rationales YEC advocates use against science.The utterly lame explanation you used at first sounds more like an excuse to avoid the issue than a reason you don't wish to post here. But you don't want to participate, suit yourself.

[jo7241974]

I don't believe in the big bang either, nor do I believe in evolution, as the fossil record capsizes this theory. The problem is that even assuming radiometric dating is wrong -- which is always a possibly -- paleontologists find clear patterns in the fossil record. Population, cataclysm, mass extinction, followed by sudden population explosion, cataclysm, mass extinction... and on and on. Paleontologists like Niles Elderedge argue that this occurred at least five times in the fossil history.

This is where YEC has a problem, as these cataclysms and re-populations are not recorded in Genesis, other than the flood.

I think there are other clues given in the Bible that may indicate some catclysmic activities may have occurred around the time of the Tower of Babel. We are taught in the time of Peleg that the earth was divided. As franktalk mentioned, Job alludes to huge changes on the earth as well.

We are told that Noah brought at least two of every living thing on the Ark. To me, that would include the dinosaurs. From passages in Job, it seems the dinosaurs may have been personally witnessed by man during Job's time. This could easily debunk "prehistoric" theories.

It would also seem that these changes, which could have been describing the separation of the continents as well as a mini-ice age, did not happen in such a way as to destroy the earth and all living things on it, like the flood did (except for those on the Ark). For me, the application of biblical passages to explain the "evidence" we see today makes much more sense than man-made theories which add billions of years to ages of "evidence". These theories are no more provable; in fact, they appear to limit God's talents and His efficiency in creation - IOW, I don't think it would have taken Him billions of years to create the earth as we now experience it.

Of course, this is all speculation on my part since I don't have any more information available to digest than the next person does who believes in an earth that is billions of years old.

[popaface]

I think that to hear any of Genesis as history is to misunderstand it.

[CommanderVimes]

I am not a YEC or GT or anything else. Because I don't know what happened in the past. I do believe in the Bible so by default I think the earth is but 7800 years old. Now how God did this I do not know, I also allow that I could be wrong in my interpretation of scripture.

But I have studied this subject and I will be happy to describe some alternative thoughts on the subject.

In order for the fossils to form that we see we need major catastrophic events. This is necessary so the bones and flesh do not rot away. So we are looking for some major events in Biblical history. The Fall is not described in detail but later we find out that the earth did not have rain before the flood. So I will assume that the period between creation and the flood did not have major geologic events. So the first one would be the flood. Obviously a major event. After the flood rain would carve out large areas in the fresh sediments from the flood. These may have been rapid enough to make some fossil layers. The earth was adjusting to new weather so this may have shifted things around quickly. The second major event would come from the time of Peleg when the earth was divided. Now some people think this was the time when God made the people working on the tower of Babel speak with different languages. It may mean just what it says. The earth was divided. If so then the breakup of Pangea if done rapidly would cause major sunamis which would flood coastlines around the world. Even Job speaks of watching the sea. At the bottom of the Grand Canyon is a layer of marine fossils. They appear jumbled up like they were part of a debris layer rather than a sea floor. Who knows but they can be viewed in this light. Coal seams may have been created by massive waves as well. If the Atlantic ocean was made quickly then the sea floor spreading would expose the heat from the core to the sea water. The warm water would cause hypercains. The massive shift in the surface of the earth would torque the earth and shift its day and axis. We know this is true because we have actually measured variations in both of these by recent earthquakes. Check NASA data for these facts. The axis of the earth has been different in the past. If the axis was more tilted when we had a hot ocean we would have massive storms roaming over cold poles. Good conditions for a quick ice age. Again Job speaks of snow and ice, but modern temperatures in this area don't support ice and snow except on a rare basis. Job's reference to dinosaurs may be due to migration caused by change in weather. Quick massive snow storms might explain the frozen mammoths. The snow melt and glacier action could have been quick. A quick shifting in major plates would cause quick changes in weather and a rerouting of water. If the plates moved quickly then the mountains caused by plates running into each other would create mountains by rising land or by volcanic activity. Now in this view of the earth's history there are lots of opportunity for quick burying of dead animals leading to fossils. Who knows if this is true.

What I know is not true is the main assumption of geology. This assumption is uniformitarianism. Peter makes it clear that all who believe this are wrong.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Ever since I read this passage I refuse to allow uniformitarianism to direct my view of the past. This goes for atomic dating as well. It also relies on a uniform past. I can not say for sure what happened in the past but I know that Peter was right.

If there was no rain then people could not have been breathing oxygen unless they were living in altitudes much higher than our tallest mountains. Oxygen and hydrogen molecules "float" up towards the sky because they are lighter than nitrogen but once they form into h2o up in the sky they become heavier and fall back to the ground and the cycle repeats.

[seanD]

I think that to hear any of Genesis as history is to misunderstand it.

The problem I see in interpreting Genesis as allegory, is that if you do, then everything else unravels like a thread in a delicate piece of fabric.

If you don't believe the story, then you must explain why Jesus believed it.

If you don't believe the genealogies, then you must discount Luke's genealogy of Christ.

If you don't believe there was an Adam, who fell and thus corrupted mankind, then Paul, who is supposed to be inspired by God, believed a fairy tale.

There's no way of rationalizing this. If Genesis is not true then the bible is not the inspired word of God.

And then from there, our faith -- which hinges on his word -- begins to get shaky, because what else is not true? Is the story of Abraham true? If not, then all of Judaism crumbles, along with Christianity -- which is affixed to Judaic history. If Luke's genealogy is not true, the virgin birth is put into question, and thus other things about the gospel story.

And on and on...

Bottom line, you can't believe in evolution and be a Christian. The two are like oil and water. It's impossible. You can try and balance those two, but you're essentially compromising God's word, and thus the results I stated above inevitably occur. There's no way you can sustain faith like that for long with God's word -- which is vital to our belief -- in doubt, despite the rationalizations to do so.

I'm saying, perhaps Genesis is true and literal, but YEC is interpreting it wrong.

On the flip side, you can't deny the physical evidence that sustains the evolutionary theory, particularly the fossil history (actually it doesn't sustain it, it derails it -- if it's analyzed correcting), unless you argue the fossil history has been intentionally manipulated by either God or Satan. This is what I'm trying to understand. What are YEC's rationalizations for this?

[popaface]

The problem I see in interpreting Genesis as allegory, is that if you do, then everything else unravels like a thread in a delicate piece of fabric.

If you don't believe the story, then you must explain why Jesus believed it.

If you don't believe the genealogies, then you must discount Luke's genealogy of Christ.

If you don't believe there was an Adam, who fell and thus corrupted mankind, then Paul, who is supposed to be inspired by God, believed a fairy tale.

There's no way of rationalizing this. If Genesis is not true then the bible is not the inspired word of God.

And then from there, our faith -- which hinges on his word -- begins to get shaky, because what else is not true? Is the story of Abraham true? If not, then all of Judaism crumbles, along with Christianity -- which is affixed to Judaic history. If Luke's genealogy is not true, the virgin birth is put into question, and thus other things about the gospel story.

And on and on...

Bottom line, you can't believe in evolution and be a Christian. The two are like oil and water. It's impossible. You can try and balance those two, but you're essentially compromising God's word, and thus the results I stated above inevitably occur. There's no way you can sustain faith like that for long with God's word -- which is vital to our belief -- in doubt, despite the rationalizations to do so.

I'm saying, perhaps Genesis is true and literal, but YEC is interpreting it wrong.

On the flip side, you can't deny the physical evidence that sustains the evolutionary theory, particularly the fossil history (actually it doesn't sustain it, it derails it -- if it's analyzed correcting), unless you argue the fossil history has been intentionally manipulated by either God or Satan. This is what I'm trying to understand. What are YEC's rationalizations for this?

I'm not saying "don't believe the story" - I'm saying "if you take it literally you've misinterpreted it".

Genesis offers itself as a prologue to Torah, it centres on the Temple (as does all Torah), as well as the election of Abraham and Israel and as such it offers identity to ancient groups of Israelites. The story of Genesis 1 is centred around a rich Temple theology normal in the ancient Middle East - one which most scholars understand as "universe in microchasm", that is, the Temple represents all the cosmos. This sheds interesting light on apocalyptic imagery attached to the destruction of the Temple in later theologies, as well as atonement rituals of ancient Israel which purify or cleanse the entire cosmos.

Bottom line, you can't get through a biology degree at university and believe in Creationism. You can't get through serious studies in the fields of religion and believe that Genesis is history. In fact, most scholars who look at Genesis don't even think about history. The arguments just don't come up. I've looked around all the Biblical journal articles I could find at uni, and there are none there. I've said this elsewhere, many times, on many threads: you cannot do religion and call it science, you cannot do science and call it religion. If you do religion and pretend to do science you're not doing either of them correctly. Science, quite technically follows a strict method, a method of analysis a method of experimentation, a method of theory, a method of hypothesis. Religions follows another method, a method of authoritative texts, a method of ritual, a method of story, a method of creed. If you do religion and pretend to do science - that is, if you take an ancient mythic text as authoritative in creating your scientific theory - it means that your theory is not scientific or religious, it is quasi-religious it is pseudo-science.

Allan

[seanD]

I'm not saying "don't believe the story" - I'm saying "if you take it literally you've misinterpreted it".

Genesis offers itself as a prologue to Torah, it centres on the Temple (as does all Torah), as well as the election of Abraham and Israel and as such it offers identity to ancient groups of Israelites. The story of Genesis 1 is centred around a rich Temple theology normal in the ancient Middle East - one which most scholars understand as "universe in microchasm", that is, the Temple represents all the cosmos. This sheds interesting light on apocalyptic imagery attached to the destruction of the Temple in later theologies, as well as atonement rituals of ancient Israel which purify or cleanse the entire cosmos.

Bottom line, you can't get through a biology degree at university and believe in Creationism. You can't get through serious studies in the fields of religion and believe that Genesis is history. In fact, most scholars who look at Genesis don't even think about history. The arguments just don't come up. I've looked around all the Biblical journal articles I could find at uni, and there are none there. I've said this elsewhere, many times, on many threads: you cannot do religion and call it science, you cannot do science and call it religion. If you do religion and pretend to do science you're not doing either of them correctly. Science, quite technically follows a strict method, a method of analysis a method of experimentation, a method of theory, a method of hypothesis. Religions follows another method, a method of authoritative texts, a method of ritual, a method of story, a method of creed. If you do religion and pretend to do science - that is, if you take an ancient mythic text as authoritative in creating your scientific theory - it means that your theory is not scientific or religious, it is quasi-religious it is pseudo-science.

Allan

I understand that, and it's a shame. Just goes to show you that the prince of this world still rules it as his domain. Yet you can still fake it while going through college, as Paul did when he put on different personalities in different circumstances, dealing with different people.

But to interpret Genesis as anything but literal, you are not believing that it was real. There is nothing in Genesis that indicates it should be taken as allegory. Nothing. There is not a single book in the bible that was all allegory, so the Hebrew metaphor, idiom, figure of speech rationale doesn't justify it in this case. Nor did anyone, Jesus, Paul, indicate it should be taken as allegory. This is a compromise in order to accept a secular dogma called evolution, and still be a Christian. But by doing this, as stated in my previous post, everything else sustaining Christianity falls in its wake, like a domino effect. Yet the compromise is solely based on YEC's interpretation of Genesis, and nothing else.

But the point I'm really focused on here is the rationale of the YEC belief, and how they explain certain facts of science. Evolution is a theory. The fossil history is a fact.

[UrbanMonk]

My question is to advocates of YEC. How do you explain these stages of fossils found in the strata, and the geological dating? Do you assume science is simply wrong or being collectively manipulated as deceptive tools of evil? Or do you believe that these stages of life forms were somehow manipulated by either God or Satan to look somewhat progressive in a range of millions of years of time? And if you believe the latter, then why did God allow this?

I'm like a YEC on steroids. What we call "the world" was imagined/manifested in the mind of the "prodigal son" symultaneously...instantaneously. Forthermore, it was deconstructed the instant it was imagined by the salvific work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God did not "allow" it to just "be". The appearance of time-based evolution is a deception worthy of "the devil", the author of change. Evolution supports the notion of time...another concept worthy of the devil, opposed to the reality of ETERNITY and CHANGLESSNESS. Time is a vast illusion, waiting for the remnants of the devil's handiwork (the prodigal son) to CHOOSE to see rightly and COME HOME. Till you are chosen, you remain...lost in space and time...a time-traveler exploring the realms of death.

[franktalk]

If there was no rain then people could not have been breathing oxygen unless they were living in altitudes much higher than our tallest mountains. Oxygen and hydrogen molecules "float" up towards the sky because they are lighter than nitrogen but once they form into h2o up in the sky they become heavier and fall back to the ground and the cycle repeats.

You really need to pick up a science book and read it. You are confusing the O2 CO2 cycle with the water vapor cycle we see today. The O2 CO2 cycle is between animals and plants, where we exhale CO2 plants in essence exhale O2. H2O on the other hand changes phase from vapor to liquid in the water cycle. Current thinking is that ultraviolet light has a great deal to do with triggering water vapor into rain. In the absence of some trigger mechanism water will suspend indefinitely in the atmosphere. Condensation could still occur if the ground temperature was at the dew point. We see all of these conditions today but in limited ways.

Your view that the atmosphere would layer based upon heavier or lighter molecules would be valid if we did not have a constant stirring mechanism in place. The world and the systems contained on it are complicated.

[seanD]

I picked the wrong title.

I should have picked YEC vs the Fossil Record.

[franktalk]

I picked the wrong title.

I should have picked YEC vs the Fossil Record.

I generally feel that both the YEC position and the fossil record stand on equally vaporous ground. I do not think that any projection back in time will be close to what actually happened. It is all an interesting story made by man.

The gaps in the fossil record are just as massive as the gap theory of time in Genesis. It all does come down to faith. I have faith that all fossils found were created by God sometime in the past. I feel mostly in the first six days but I could be wrong.

Now God did design all species with the ability to adapt to His plan of change on this earth. As things change each generation can use different genes to adapt to the changing world. I see this as God's plan and give Him the credit for making it so wonderful. Others use God's creation to declare there is no God. How sad, and blind.

[seanD]

I generally feel that both the YEC position and the fossil record stand on equally vaporous ground. I do not think that any projection back in time will be close to what actually happened. It is all an interesting story made by man.

The gaps in the fossil record are just as massive as the gap theory of time in Genesis. It all does come down to faith. I have faith that all fossils found were created by God sometime in the past. I feel mostly in the first six days but I could be wrong.

Now God did design all species with the ability to adapt to His plan of change on this earth. As things change each generation can use different genes to adapt to the changing world. I see this as God's plan and give Him the credit for making it so wonderful. Others use God's creation to declare there is no God. How sad, and blind.

The reason I'm stuck on the fossil record is because it is different than arguing in favor of evolution. The fossil history completely derails traditional gradualism. There is a division in the establishment right now, a shifting of ideas, and nothing short of contention, confusion, and uncertainty. Eldredge, who swoons over Darwin almost like a giddy teenage girl over a rock idol, must go out of his way to confirm his admiration, all the while explaining why Darwin was wrong. As a result, he's faced some "hurtful" accusations from his colleagues, being called "anti-Darwin" and even traitors to Darwinism (source (http://www.nileseldredge.com/pdf_files/Confessions_of_a_Darwinist.pdf)). He also has an exceptional disdain for creationists, many of which have taken his theory (which he admits does not explain every faucet of how his theory works or how viable it is) and used it against Darwinism. This tells me that he is a man who is bound by the facts, and what he sees, regardless of the consequences. If for any reason he might be mistaken, he wouldn't hesitate to correct himself as a result of those consequences. So it's simply impossible to argue that he is fudging the data. The only thing we can argue is that he is mistaken, which is still difficult for me to believe, since the repercussions are so great against traditional Darwinism.

[franktalk]

The best case for Darwinist to argue is the probability of a fossil being made. Since it is so difficult to have all of the environmental circumstances all line up to make a fossil they could argue the gaps are due to problems in their creation. But to do so would set them against the uniformitarianism folks. They also have a problem because of the long age of the earth which they believe in. Somewhere in those ages enough catastrophes occurred that we should have a more complete record. But they need the long ages because the mechanism of change is so slow that only with billions of years and a good amount of luck can evolution occur. But hey, who needs data when dogma is so much easier to teach.

[seanD]

The best case for Darwinist to argue is the probability of a fossil being made. Since it is so difficult to have all of the environmental circumstances all line up to make a fossil they could argue the gaps are due to problems in their creation. But to do so would set them against the uniformitarianism folks. They also have a problem because of the long age of the earth which they believe in. Somewhere in those ages enough catastrophes occurred that we should have a more complete record. But they need the long ages because the mechanism of change is so slow that only with billions of years and a good amount of luck can evolution occur. But hey, who needs data when dogma is so much easier to teach.

You seem to be getting off the point, and focusing more on the dogma of evolution.

Eldredge and Gould argue that there are minor disturbances in the fossil record -- earthquakes, continental shifts, climate changes, etc. -- and that this occurs hundreds of times (a reality that gradual Darwinism went to great pains to accept in and of itself). But they argue that there were also about five global cataclysms that wiped out most of the population, in which a whole new ecosystem and re-population explosion appeared out of nowhere, transitions of which do not appear in the fossil history between the gap of extinction and population explosion. Other paleontologists confirm his findings.

You're saying, he, and other paleontologists are wrong in their assessment of the fossils? I find this a bit hard to swallow, not only because it derails gradualism for the most part, but more importantly, creates serious problems in explaining these major gaps, what causes this massive re-population explosion, and if this is even plausible within the paradigm of natural selection and genetics (both if which are suppose to be random occurences), and their theories to explain this, they admit, is not a surety that has been verified, or if it is even verifiable.

[CommanderVimes]

You really need to pick up a science book and read it. You are confusing the O2 CO2 cycle with the water vapor cycle we see today. The O2 CO2 cycle is between animals and plants, where we exhale CO2 plants in essence exhale O2. H2O on the other hand changes phase from vapor to liquid in the water cycle. Current thinking is that ultraviolet light has a great deal to do with triggering water vapor into rain. In the absence of some trigger mechanism water will suspend indefinitely in the atmosphere. Condensation could still occur if the ground temperature was at the dew point. We see all of these conditions today but in limited ways.

Your view that the atmosphere would layer based upon heavier or lighter molecules would be valid if we did not have a constant stirring mechanism in place. The world and the systems contained on it are complicated.

Ah I get ya. Thanks for that.

[franktalk]

seanD,

I live in the upper desert in Arizona. I am surrounded by rabbits and snakes. But I have never seen a fossil of either one being formed. I expect I never will. I do not think that either of these animals will be found in the soil in some distant time. Only some catastrophic event will allow that to happen. The point I am making is that you need two things to happen at the same time. A catastrophic event to cause the conditions for fossil creation and at the same time something to fossilize. I think that this makes for wild differences between what we see and actually was there in the past. We do know that populations of animals are determined by environment and predators. Wipe out the predators or change the environment and you can have an explosion or extinction of a species. I would suspect that the major fossil layers are due to a shift in predators and environment. Then after an explosion of some species they got unlucky enough to be fossilized due to their numbers. I don't think this is a wild view of the past.

Knowing how rare a fossil is I have to believe that the fossil record is not representative of the past.

[seanD]

seanD,

I live in the upper desert in Arizona. I am surrounded by rabbits and snakes. But I have never seen a fossil of either one being formed. I expect I never will. I do not think that either of these animals will be found in the soil in some distant time. Only some catastrophic event will allow that to happen. The point I am making is that you need two things to happen at the same time. A catastrophic event to cause the conditions for fossil creation and at the same time something to fossilize. I think that this makes for wild differences between what we see and actually was there in the past. We do know that populations of animals are determined by environment and predators. Wipe out the predators or change the environment and you can have an explosion or extinction of a species. I would suspect that the major fossil layers are due to a shift in predators and environment. Then after an explosion of some species they got unlucky enough to be fossilized due to their numbers. I don't think this is a wild view of the past.

Knowing how rare a fossil is I have to believe that the fossil record is not representative of the past.

You're still being very vague in your explanation, and I'm really trying hard to understand what you're arguing. You seem to be hinting at the fact that the palaeontologists are wrong. But then you follow up with this... Wipe out the predators or change the environment and you can have an explosion or extinction of a species. I would suspect that the major fossil layers are due to a shift in predators and environment. Then after an explosion of some species they got unlucky enough to be fossilized due to their numbers.

But why aren't these "shifts," that wiped out mass populations recorded in the bible (think long periods of dinosaurs, with little to no change, then almost completely wiped out, only to be replaced by an explosion of mammals, with little to no transitions in between -- then multiply that by five)? And where did these "creations" occur, as the creation of species only occurs on the fifth and sixth day in Gensis.

[franktalk]

You're still being very vague in your explanation, and I'm really trying hard to understand what you're arguing. You seem to be hinting at the fact that the palaeontologists are wrong.

The point I am making about the past is the data is so incomplete in what we find that no one except someone that was there could know the past. So I am not going to declare I know the past any more than anyone else. I don't care for someone who throws stones at an idea without offering some kind of alternate opinion. But in this case I am at a loss. It is not the interpretation that is in error but the raw data may not be representative at all. Sure I could make up some theories and try and shoehorn a preconceived history on the data. But then I would be doing what I find objectionable with all those who project the past. I believe in the God of the Bible and as such find no problem with what we find around the world and the history as declared in its pages. The Book is for us to come to faith, it is not a history book. Part of faith is a willingness to wait for some questions to be answered.

I could go out and collect a bunch of unrelated items and place them in a room. I could then ask someone to examine all of the items and tell me the history of the person who lived in the room. I am sure a story would come forth. It of course would have little to do with what actually happened or who was there. I see the small amount of historical items in this light.

Now the Bible does contain enough description of history and physics to give us comfort. But it is not proof. How can God ask us to live in faith and then give us proof of God? It makes no sense at all. The prophecies are the exception. But even with them the masses do not read them the same or come to similar conclusions. How can I see them IMO so clearly yet others see a completely different interpretation? Are some of us blind? I think so. Am I blind or are the others blind? It does not matter because it is what brought me to Christ.

But then you follow up with this...
But why aren't these "shifts," that wiped out mass populations recorded in the bible (think long periods of dinosaurs, with little to no change, then almost completely wiped out, only to be replaced by an explosion of mammals, with little to no transitions in between -- then multiply that by five)? And where did these "creations" occur, as the creation of species only occurs on the fifth and sixth day in Gensis.

The message of the Bible comes in loud and clear. Jesus is Lord and Savior. The whole Bible is a series of repeating patterns of that message.

I have already posted on this thread a view of the earths catastrophes and how they line up with scripture. Of course I do not know if this view is accurate. It is enough for me to read about scoffers in Peter 3 to know that I do not want to be in that group. I do not see why men over all of history have found the need to prove God exist. It is a fools game. Tell me what has been the fruit of all this effort? Naturalism and determinism to be sure; I am sure the Christian fathers of science have shed many a tear over what happened after they went asleep.

I believe that God is active in creation even now. He is just doing it in a way that the Mystery of God is not changed.

[seanD]

The point I am making about the past is the data is so incomplete in what we find that no one except someone that was there could know the past. So I am not going to declare I know the past any more than anyone else. I don't care for someone who throws stones at an idea without offering some kind of alternate opinion. But in this case I am at a loss. It is not the interpretation that is in error but the raw data may not be representative at all. Sure I could make up some theories and try and shoehorn a preconceived history on the data. But then I would be doing what I find objectionable with all those who project the past. I believe in the God of the Bible and as such find no problem with what we find around the world and the history as declared in its pages. The Book is for us to come to faith, it is not a history book. Part of faith is a willingness to wait for some questions to be answered.

I could go out and collect a bunch of unrelated items and place them in a room. I could then ask someone to examine all of the items and tell me the history of the person who lived in the room. I am sure a story would come forth. It of course would have little to do with what actually happened or who was there. I see the small amount of historical items in this light.

Basically, the only conclusion I can come up with is that you're saying paleontologists are wrong. Which is fine, but then you give the reason which is not really accurate, which is ironically the excuse Darwinists themselves have used. Since Darwin to about the 70's (prior to Eldredge and Gould going public with the fossil discrepancy), they all used the excuse that the fossil record was inadequate to rationalize not just the lack of transitions and gaps, but the jumps and halts in the fossil record. If Eldredge and Gould were in any doubt that the fossil record was adequate, which they vehemently deny, they would have continued to use this as an excuse, particularly when the fossil record is so damning to traditional Darwinism. Do you see what I'm saying? Their theory, which is based on the fossil evidence, works against traditional uniformatarianism, creates more problems for Darwinism than it solves, and works in favor of creationism (in fact, there were quite a few evolutionists in the 19th century that concluded this from the fossil record even back then).

Now the Bible does contain enough description of history and physics to give us comfort. But it is not proof. How can God ask us to live in faith and then give us proof of God? It makes no sense at all. The prophecies are the exception. But even with them the masses do not read them the same or come to similar conclusions. How can I see them IMO so clearly yet others see a completely different interpretation? Are some of us blind? I think so. Am I blind or are the others blind? It does not matter because it is what brought me to Christ.

You keep getting off topic. No one here is denying the existence of God.

The message of the Bible comes in loud and clear. Jesus is Lord and Savior. The whole Bible is a series of repeating patterns of that message.

Agreed, but this isn't the topic. YEC, IMO, is leading many Christians astray, simply because they cannot look the other way from the fossil history, but at the same time, assume that their choice is either the faulty dogma of evolution or YEC. I'm arguing, it doesn't have to be either or.

I have already posted on this thread a view of the earths catastrophes and how they line up with scripture. Of course I do not know if this view is accurate. It is enough for me to read about scoffers in Peter 3 to know that I do not want to be in that group.

Peter was addressing scoffers about the return of Christ, and these same scoffers did not believe the flood story. This isn't about either issue.

I do not see why men over all of history have found the need to prove God exist. It is a fools game. Tell me what has been the fruit of all this effort? Naturalism and determinism to be sure; I am sure the Christian fathers of science have shed many a tear over what happened after they went asleep.

Bemoaning it doesn't solve the problem. The problem exists.

I believe that God is active in creation even now. He is just doing it in a way that the Mystery of God is not changed.

No offense, I agree, but you're all over the place here.

[franktalk]

Basically, the only conclusion I can come up with is that you're saying paleontologists are wrong. Which is fine, but then you give the reason which is not really accurate, which is ironically the excuse Darwinists themselves have used. Since Darwin to about the 70's (prior to Eldredge and Gould going public with the fossil discrepancy), they all used the excuse that the fossil record was inadequate to rationalize not just the lack of transitions and gaps, but the jumps and halts in the fossil record. If Eldredge and Gould were in any doubt that the fossil record was adequate, which they vehemently deny, they would have continued to use this as an excuse, particularly when the fossil record is so damning to traditional Darwinism. Do you see what I'm saying? Their theory, which is based on the fossil evidence, works against traditional uniformatarianism, creates more problems for Darwinism than it solves, and works in favor of creationism (in fact, there were quite a few evolutionists in the 19th century that concluded this from the fossil record even back then).

I realize that I support the theory that fossils are hard to make, and in doing so support the argument that the fossil record could represent evolution if that was all we had to go on. But we don't. Evolution can be disproven in many ways, but that is for another thread. The fossil record does not disprove Darwinism in my opinion. I have to let the data speak for itself. Fossils are hard to make, we have gaps in the record. I would expect this even if the species did evolve which they did not. So if you want my opinion on fossils and how they disprove Darwinism I can't help you. The reason uniformitarianism is going away is because of the point you are making. Only with catastrophic events and having them rare can we have the current fossil record. Don't you see that science will stand on its' head to prove Darwinism. Even it this means cutting off uniformitarianism in some cases. To me it is a plan and is not lead by the data.

You keep getting off topic. No one here is denying the existence of God.

That is true but in this section of the forum I cast out pearls.

Agreed, but this isn't the topic. YEC, IMO, is leading many Christians astray, simply because they cannot look the other way from the fossil history, but at the same time, assume that their choice is either the faulty dogma of evolution or YEC. I'm arguing, it doesn't have to be either or.

Yes I agree, YEC although with the best intensions is doing harm.

Peter was addressing scoffers about the return of Christ, and these same scoffers did not believe the flood story. This isn't about either issue.

The scoffers believed in uniformitarianism, that is right on target for this thread. They deny the coming of Christ due to a belief that the earth was not changing and had not changed. This prediction is for modern man. It did not make sense until recently.

Bemoaning it doesn't solve the problem. The problem exists.

As long as man tries to prove God exist by using the creation we will have a path for people to go to find proof where none exist. This diversion is not the path of faith.

No offense, I agree, but you're all over the place here.

No offense taken. The subject is huge and all I have offered are soundbites.

If one would take on the task of showing how science did not provide the important questions of life it would take a lifetime. And of course science would not sit still as facts were gathered to disprove current theories. So at the end of a lifetime of work it would be obsolete and worthless. But that is the point, science makes itself into something different every few years. This alone should give us a distrust of science in supplying answers to tough questions. It is a constantly moving truth ruler. So it can not by definition supply truth, since truth does not change. My point is that once we see this we should jump off the science bus and YEC bus when dealing with Godly issues.

[popaface]

I understand that, and it's a shame. Just goes to show you that the prince of this world still rules it as his domain.

No, it doesn't. It shows that to be intellectually rigorous, one cannot believe that a myth is history. This entire notion of Genesis = history is not Christian belief and it cannot be substantiated by any science or any archeology. It is simply a misinterpretation of Genesis. That's the bottom line.

Yet you can still fake it while going through college, as Paul did when he put on different personalities in different circumstances, dealing with different people.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that people go through college and pretend to believe what their lecturers tell them? Are you suggesting that someone studying biology should do so without actually believing the scientif theories that hold biology together?

The fact here is that, as evidenced in your comment quoted: One cannot go through intellectually rigorous studies in religion, anthropology, or any fields in science without being expected to believe the theory of evolution. Not because Satan is controlling academia, you conspiracy theorist, you, but because the theory is so established that the only way you can possibly not believe them is to either never go to college at all, or go to college believing a huge conspiracy theory about fossils, DNA, and the entire scientific community. I don't like conspiracy theories, especially the ones that hold onto such absurd beliefs, and the ones that misrepresent my Christian faith.

But to interpret Genesis as anything but literal, you are not believing that it was real. There is nothing in Genesis that indicates it should be taken as allegory. Nothing. There is not a single book in the bible that was all allegory, so the Hebrew metaphor, idiom, figure of speech rationale doesn't justify it in this case. Nor did anyone, Jesus, Paul, indicate it should be taken as allegory. This is a compromise in order to accept a secular dogma called evolution, and still be a Christian. But by doing this, as stated in my previous post, everything else sustaining Christianity falls in its wake, like a domino effect. Yet the compromise is solely based on YEC's interpretation of Genesis, and nothing else.

That's wrong, and that's a product of post-Enlightenment ideas, not Christian ideas.

I really hate those sorts of statements: "there's nothing in Genesis that indicates it should be taken as allegory". Sure, but no myth anywhere will preface itself with "please don't take me literally". And you don't apply those same interpretive structures and rules to other ancient myths like the Illiad or the Bgavadghitta, do you?

Jesus and Paul didn't think in terms of "literal" and "metaphor". They never had to ask or answer those questions.

This is not a "compromise" by evil secularists who want to be Christians and believe the theory of Evolution. This is the normal way to interpret Genesis. Also, most books in the Old Testament are not historical at all, they may include people who actually existed, but they weren't written as history. They were written as "stories" in order to shape the national / cultural identities of Hasmonean / Maccabean Jews.

But the point I'm really focused on here is the rationale of the YEC belief, and how they explain certain facts of science. Evolution is a theory. The fossil history is a fact.

Evolution is a theory that's substantiated by more than just the fossil record. And it's a "theory" in a strict scientific sense, just like gravity is also a theory.

I have no respect for YEC or any Creationist form. I think it's simple anti-intellectualism and pseudo-scientific hoohaa. Nothing intellectually rigorous or even Christian about it.

Allan

[franktalk]

popaface,

Interesting post. You sound as though the creation will show proof of God, is that true?

Just how knowledgable are you about this science you so love. Since science changes everyday I would need to know if your knowledge is recent or not.

I was once as confused as you are.

[rogue06]

You really need to pick up a science book and read it. You are confusing the O2 CO2 cycle with the water vapor cycle we see today. The O2 CO2 cycle is between animals and plants, where we exhale CO2 plants in essence exhale O2. H2O on the other hand changes phase from vapor to liquid in the water cycle. Current thinking is that ultraviolet light has a great deal to do with triggering water vapor into rain. In the absence of some trigger mechanism water will suspend indefinitely in the atmosphere. Condensation could still occur if the ground temperature was at the dew point. We see all of these conditions today but in limited ways.

Your view that the atmosphere would layer based upon heavier or lighter molecules would be valid if we did not have a constant stirring mechanism in place. The world and the systems contained on it are complicated.
Don't mean to interrupt the conversation, but until they revamped the page and gave a shorter answer, AnswersinGenesis, perhaps the largest YEC organization responded this way to the question about whether or not there was rain before the Flood:

"This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g., the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper."

IMHO, the condition of there being no rain is described only in conjunction with the time when plants and man also did not exist and it is speculation to conclude that this condition persisted until Noah’s time.

[seanD]

No, it doesn't. It shows that to be intellectually rigorous, one cannot believe that a myth is history. This entire notion of Genesis = history is not Christian belief and it cannot be substantiated by any science or any archeology. It is simply a misinterpretation of Genesis. That's the bottom line.


Well, I'd rather hear YEC's answer to paleontology, but since they're not responding, I'll like to ask you this question, since I see you have "Christian" in your belief.

Do you believe Adam was real? If not, how do you explain Paul's belief in Adam, and as the man who brought sin upon the world, which required a redeemer?

What was the purpose of Christ as redeemer, and why did he come if Adam's fall was fiction?

How do you explain Jesus' belief in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve?

How do you explain Luke's genealogy?

How do you explain Abraham's genealogy? Was Abraham even real? If not, why did Jesus and Paul believe he was real, and why did Paul believe Christ was of the seed of Abraham?

Was Noah real? If not, why did Jesus believe he was real?

Was Enoch real? If not, why did Jude and the author of Hebrews believe he was real?

Was Cain real? If not, why did John, Jude, and the author of Hebrews believe he was real?

Was Abel real? If not, why did Jesus and the author of Hebrews believe he was real?

Was Joseph real? If not, then how do you explain Exodus, and pretty much the whole Torah? Or do you believe the Torah itself is fiction?

If you believe some of these are true, but not all of it, where do you draw that line between what was true and wasn't? And how can you be confident that what you believe is true really is true?

If you don't believe any of this is true, why are you even a Christian?

Just curious.

[franktalk]

IMHO, the condition of there being no rain is described only in conjunction with the time when plants and man also did not exist and it is speculation to conclude that this condition persisted until Noah’s time.

Actually you don't have an opinion. What you have is a never ending cut and paste from other peoples work. Please try and think for yourself. You have the potential to be a shining light for others to see but you have squandered your talents, and for what, vapor.

[popaface]

Well, I'd rather hear YEC's answer to paleontology, but since they're not responding, I'll like to ask you this question, since I see you have "Christian" in your belief.

Do you believe Adam was real? If not, how do you explain Paul's belief in Adam, and as the man who brought sin upon the world, which required a redeemer?

What was the purpose of Christ as redeemer, and why did he come if Adam's fall was fiction?

How do you explain Jesus' belief in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve?

How do you explain Luke's genealogy?

How do you explain Abraham's genealogy? Was Abraham even real? If not, why did Jesus and Paul believe he was real, and why did Paul believe Christ was of the seed of Abraham?

Was Noah real? If not, why did Jesus believe he was real?

Was Enoch real? If not, why did Jude and the author of Hebrews believe he was real?

Was Cain real? If not, why did John, Jude, and the author of Hebrews believe he was real?

Was Abel real? If not, why did Jesus and the author of Hebrews believe he was real?

Was Joseph real? If not, then how do you explain Exodus, and pretty much the whole Torah? Or do you believe the Torah itself is fiction?

If you believe some of these are true, but not all of it, where do you draw that line between what was true and wasn't? And how can you be confident that what you believe is true really is true?

If you don't believe any of this is true, why are you even a Christian?

Just curious.

I was going to address these one at a time, but I'll try just a general overview to what I believe about the Old Testament and also I'll try to explain something very complex like "cultural reality" in order to address the issues surrounding the NT authors and characters' understandings of the OT:

Firstly, I don't believe that anything in the OT is "history" in any way whatsoever. I think that some of the characters such as the later kings might have existed, but I certainly don't think that what the authors of Kings and Chronicles are trying to do is talk about what they were like as real human beings. They are literary motifs, in fact, everyone in the OT is a literary motif in order to explain the exile and to give the Jews a national identity. This motif itself is very inconsistent as there are very many definitions of what it means to belong to the group in the OT.

The NT doesn't ask or even address the question of whether or not these people actually existed. They address what the characters in the stories mean to the authors of the NT during their own very fluid historical and cultural contexts. Now, because these stories existed in order to create and inform cultural and national identity for the people living in Palestine 2000 years ago (even though the term "national" is a very ambiguous one at the time), they were interpreted from the perspective of an already informed and existing and developing cultural identity of these Second Temple Jews (among them the "Christians"). The way that cultural reality works is much more about identity and group-hood than about writing a history of their past. And we can of course see that in the geneologies of Matthew and Luth. I imagine that they describe Jesus' lineage accurately enough for a few generations (give or take), but they most definately do not describe his family roots accurately after 10 people. In order to better describe how strongly I feel about cultural realities and them being informed by a cultral identity, I'll put it this way: I firmly believe that Jesus was transfigured in front of his disciples on a mountain and that they recognized two people on either side of him, Moses and Elijah. Now, Moses and Elijah never actually existed but they were so engraved in the cultural framework of the Second Temple Judaisms that they were able to exist in their mysticism.

The stories inform a national identity, yes, and mixed up within this identity are various forms of cultic behaviours. Among them is the understanding of "Day of Atonement", this sacrificial motif dominates the developing understandings of Jesus, and they owe a lot to the OT (as well as other extra-biblical sources). Epistle of Barnabas 7 draws heavily on Day of Atonement ritual motifs applying them to Jesus and the crucifixion. Hebrews also seems to be drawing on Day of Atonement themes in its Christology. Atonement is one of the central motifs of Christianity, the execution of Jesus being interpreted in terms of atonement theologies. Given that Jesus was executed at Passover such atonement theologies don’t make the immediate sense that they would have done if he had been executed on Yom Kippur. However, if the Day of Atonement mythologies stand behind the Passover myth of the Exodus, coupled with the fact that both Passover and the Day of Atonement are equinoctial feasts occurring at the head of the secular and sacred years, then the connections of his death with the Day of Atonement become readily apparent. Furthermore, Crispin Fletcher-Lewis [2006 & 2007] has argued that Jesus understood himself to be the heavenly eschatological High Priest, ‘Israel’s Melchizedekian priest-king’ [2006: 175, cf Ps 110 & 11QMelch]. If that is so perhaps such atonement theology derives from Jesus himself, who, in the face of his approaching death, may have himself interpreted it in terms of the rituals and symbolism of the Day of Atonement. Stepping into the atonement gestalt, Jesus’ death becomes the full earthly manifestation of the LORD’s own eternal life-outpouring, liturgically represented and performed each year on the Day of Atonement. Margaret Barker has observed that ‘the later liturgies of the Church seem more akin to the Day of Atonement than to Passover and it may be that the Day of Atonement was the context from the beginning’ impelling her to suggest that there ‘can be no certainty that what the Eucharist became was different from Jesus’ original intention’ [2007: 23-24]. The Eucharist is part, then, of the same gestalt as the Day of Atonement, a rite of healing and renewal manifesting that same ‘eternal Sacrifice’ concretely instantiated in Jesus’ execution.

The fact that all the stories in the OT are mythological, the "sovereign" nation of Israel is itself a mythology and the very idea of "Israel" is a very fluid and complex concept does not stop the fact that Jesus, a Second Temple Jew, found his own identity and destiny in ancient Jewish Scripture.

Many of these issues are very complex and I try to approach them much more from a socio-anthropological perspective than an historical perspective in order to shed light on the developing ritual/mythic motifs throughout the Judaisms and Christianities that have existed. What I describe is also a very developed and scholarly approach to the data, rather than a fundamentalistic approach. But just so that you know that the issue is not quite as simple as "Do you, or do you not take the entire Bible literally?" there are very many questions which need to be addressed after that. "Should you take various stories in Scriptures literally?" "Which canon of Scripture do you mean when you say "Bible"?" also "What interpretation is the "literal" one?" I think that the answer to every single one of these questions leads much more towards the conclusion that Biblical literalism itself is nothing but 1. a joke, 2. a myth and 3. a hegemonic tool that conservative religious leaders use to control a manipulable and ignorant populace.

Allan

[popaface]

popaface,

Interesting post. You sound as though the creation will show proof of God, is that true?

Just how knowledgable are you about this science you so love. Since science changes everyday I would need to know if your knowledge is recent or not.

I was once as confused as you are.

It's simply not about proof for the existence of God; I'm not interested in those arguments, I believe in God.

I'm simply not knowledgable in science. I'm a theologian not a scientist. But I was knowledgable in the YEC debates against Evolution, I used to spend hours reading through AIG and other such websites. I didn't forfeit my belief in Creationism because I learned that those arguments were unscientific, I forfeited them because I learned that they were unscriptural. As all Creationism is a load of quasi-religious hoo haa that makes zero sense concerning the history of Christian faith and completely misrepresents us.

Creationism is not Christianity, it is a strange contemporary belief, mostly based in America by fundamentalists who have no knowledge of anything outside their own shoreline. That's the sociological truth about where these debates are coming from. And that's enough to offer them a huge cringe factor as well.

Now, I'm a Christian, I sit quite comfortably around many Catholic communions and I've also found my faith expressed quite profoundly in Romanian Orthodox communions. I cannot see how this strange and very new Evangelicalism can possible call itself "Christianity" or much less "Christian normalcy" considering the rich history of the Christian religion which for 2 thousand years has looked and continues to look and function much much differently to these strange views.

Allan

[franktalk]

In post 35 I stated that Rogue cuts and paste work, what I refer to is his use as science as truth and how reading his work is like reading a science text book. Now some would be happy being called a science text book. I hope that Rogue is not so much.

I do not want the wrong impression out there. Rogue is well educated and forms his responses from a wealth of scientific opinion.

[franktalk]

It's simply not about proof for the existence of God; I'm not interested in those arguments, I believe in God.

Creationism is not Christianity, it is a strange contemporary belief, mostly based in America by fundamentalists who have no knowledge of anything outside their own shoreline. That's the sociological truth about where these debates are coming from. And that's enough to offer them a huge cringe factor as well.

Allan

I think you have made your point perfectly clear. Do you not see a problem with using the OT as a story and not history? Why would the people of the NT use the foundations built in the OT as a reason for their behavior? If the OT is nothing but a story then it is vapor and not real. Now we are alive are we not? Do you think Jesus died for you? Did He die for the people born before He arrived? Who are they? Why is there sin in this world? If the OT is not history then how do we interpret the message so it has meaning? I mean what part can we cast away and what is the meat? IMO once you start to cut up the Bible you loose the message.

[popaface]

I think you have made your point perfectly clear. Do you not see a problem with using the OT as a story and not history? Why would the people of the NT use the foundations built in the OT as a reason for their behavior? If the OT is nothing but a story then it is vapor and not real. Now we are alive are we not? Do you think Jesus died for you? Did He die for the people born before He arrived? Who are they? Why is there sin in this world? If the OT is not history then how do we interpret the message so it has meaning? I mean what part can we cast away and what is the meat? IMO once you start to cut up the Bible you loose the message.

No one really asked these questions, or had the developed archeological tools which were able to come up with theories that could really give concrete (pun intended) answers to them. *shrugs*

If your criticism is that the authors of the NT take if for granted that the OT (though it didn't exist at the time) was historical, then I don't care. I'd argue that they didn't really care/ask/answer the questions. They weren't about that. Whatever the OT meant to the authors of the NT, it "meant" exactly what they wrote that it meant, regardless of "historical context".

All your criticisms are basically questions that serious religious scholars yawn at... In fact... Goodnight.

Allan

[seanD]

Popaface, I wonder if most Christians who don't take Genesis literally hold your and UrbanMonk's views. Otherwise, those views are so radically unorthodox and unusual that it doesn't really solve my curiosity of how TE orthodox Christians generally deal with those issues I brought up in my previous post.

[popaface]

Popaface, I wonder if most Christians who don't take Genesis literally hold your and UrbanMonk's views.

That depends on what UrbanMonk's views are.

I am a religious pluralist (not univeralist), and I am interested in post-colonial critical theory in anthropological / cross-cultural Biblical studies as well as canonical criticism and reception criticism...

Allan

[franktalk]

In general we have drift of faith. Some will declare that the Bible contains the Word of God and everything in conflict with the Bible is in error or incorrectly interpreted. My position is to take the Bible quite literal. So to me the OT is history.

The Church has been divided over time by man. The doctrines and what not have slowly eroded the firm Word of God. Many feel very comfortable in declaring wild interpretations of scripture. It is now time for man to declare that the Bible is of man and as such can be restricted by law or outright banned. We of course are heading this way. Remember what the serpent said "Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" This was the first attempt to question the Word and cast doubt on the message. Here we are some 7800 years later with man holding on and also destroying. The Church started with believers hiding in caves, it may end in the same way.

But let us not be troubled. Fallen man can take this body away but it is mostly worthless anyway.

[popaface]

In general we have drift of faith. Some will declare that the Bible contains the Word of God and everything in conflict with the Bible is in error or incorrectly interpreted. My position is to take the Bible quite literal. So to me the OT is history.

The Church has been divided over time by man. The doctrines and what not have slowly eroded the firm Word of God. Many feel very comfortable in declaring wild interpretations of scripture. It is now time for man to declare that the Bible is of man and as such can be restricted by law or outright banned. We of course are heading this way. Remember what the serpent said "Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" This was the first attempt to question the Word and cast doubt on the message. Here we are some 7800 years later with man holding on and also destroying. The Church started with believers hiding in caves, it may end in the same way.

But let us not be troubled. Fallen man can take this body away but it is mostly worthless anyway.

"So to me the OT is history" - Good for you. But don't try to pretend that it's an educated position when no Biblical scholar and no scientist and no archeologist would agree with you.

And that's a great conspiracy theory about what us more liberal or progressive Christians are trying to hope for. We don't hate the Bible, we love our myths - and we want our myths back from the literalists. It's not fair that Christians are being defined as really really ignorant people because of you all and it's certainly not fair that the Biblical literalists are turning everyone atheist.

Allan

[seanD]

It's not fair that Christians are being defined as really really ignorant people because of you all and it's certainly not fair that the Biblical literalists are turning everyone atheist.


Hmm, very telling comment there. Something I suspected all along.

One thing I can't stand is an ignorant and unintelligent Christian (especially when it comes to their beliefs), but Jesus taught time and time again that seeking the world's approval through compromise and conformity was the wrong way to go, and that persecution would occur as a result. Persecution comes in many forms. It doesn't always have to be flayed alive, or fed to the lions. Looked down upon as an "intellectual inferior" by your peers for a literal belief -- that might not correlate with the world religion of evolution -- is a form of persecution, particularly in our hyper-intellectual and sophisticated culture.

I'm sensing a compromise in many Christians because of this pressure.

[franktalk]

"So to me the OT is history" - Good for you. But don't try to pretend that it's an educated position when no Biblical scholar and no scientist and no archeologist would agree with you.

And that's a great conspiracy theory about what us more liberal or progressive Christians are trying to hope for. We don't hate the Bible, we love our myths - and we want our myths back from the literalists. It's not fair that Christians are being defined as really really ignorant people because of you all and it's certainly not fair that the Biblical literalists are turning everyone atheist.

Allan

Do you agree that all of science rest on the next discovery? Yes or no

By definition you must agree that the data leads the way to theory and law. Or do you disagree?

In the 1700's some of the civilizations and cities of the Bible were not discovered yet. This lead some to conclude that the OT was myth. They thought that since there was no evidence then the only conclusion must be that someone made up the stories of ancient people and ancient cities. From a scientific view this makes perfect sense. When there is no evidence of an ancient account then the account must be myth. After all science is based on data is it not? But time has a way changing the perception of man, or at least it should have. In the 1860's some ancient cities were discovered in modern Iraq. At that time the myth went away and no longer could that section of the Bible be questioned is its historical content. But the scoffers did not change their ways, they just set their collected sights on yet other undiscovered history. So this begs the question, who was the person of faith? Was it the ones who by faith knew that Nineveh existed, or was it the ones who thought the Bible myth until it was proven correct? Let me take a totally uneducated guess and say the person with the most faith was the one who believed scripture without the artifacts. Now can we blame these people for their unbelief? No we can't. Because that judgement is left for another.

Now let us move along 150 years. Many more artifacts have been discovered in support of the Bible. But man being man many disagree and cast doubt on the historical nature of the Bible. So in the face of gathering evidence many took a totally new path. For you see that scholars became famous by disagreeing with the Bible. They received awards from this world. Their articles were published in the best of technical journals. They were invited to the best parties. Their articles were published and the masses read their dribble. Some looked to God and said how can you let these fallen men do this to your good Name. Others read the dribble and identified with it, to them it was truth, it felt as the ground beneath their feet. Rock solid as truth but with a sweet smell that always lead to success in this world.

Many years before this another man would refuse to have faith. He heard a story from his friends about a glorious event. Yet he would not belief or trust his friends to tell the truth. He was his own rock and did not need another. His world was what he alone could touch and he alone could see. The senses of another trusted friend was not enough to sway his heart. He declared that unless he could touch and see with his own eyes he would not believe. So God knowing all from the beginning used this man to teach us all a lesson. A lesson of faith. This man Thomas, did not have faith. In many ways this story describes many people in the world today.

What do you think, Thomas, err Allan

[popaface]

Hmm, very telling comment there. Something I suspected all along.

One thing I can't stand is an ignorant and unintelligent Christian (especially when it comes to their beliefs), but Jesus taught time and time again that seeking the world's approval through compromise and conformity was the wrong way to go, and that persecution would occur as a result. Persecution comes in many forms. It doesn't always have to be flayed alive, or fed to the lions. Looked down upon as an "intellectual inferior" by your peers for a literal belief -- that might not correlate with the world religion of evolution -- is a form of persecution, particularly in our hyper-intellectual and sophisticated culture.

I'm sensing a compromise in many Christians because of this pressure.

That's a completely horrible way of looking at it. I never said 'you' were intellectually inferior, I said that Biblical literalism was wrong and that those who held those views were either intellectually dishonest or simply haven't studied very much by way of what critical scholars theorize.

Do you agree that all of science rest on the next discovery? Yes or no

Some parts of what I do rest of some forms of science, not exact sciences mind you, it's not as if history is a form of math. But I'd agree, science changes all the time, just like religion does, just like language does, just like culture does and just like fundamentalism does.

By definition you must agree that the data leads the way to theory and law. Or do you disagree?

I agree, the data gives way to theory, and in very strict methodical forms of science, it leads to "laws" and "facts" as well which are very established theories and observations the data.

In the 1700's some of the civilizations and cities of the Bible were not discovered yet. This lead some to conclude that the OT was myth. They thought that since there was no evidence then the only conclusion must be that someone made up the stories of ancient people and ancient cities. From a scientific view this makes perfect sense. When there is no evidence of an ancient account then the account must be myth. After all science is based on data is it not? But time has a way changing the perception of man, or at least it should have. In the 1860's some ancient cities were discovered in modern Iraq. At that time the myth went away and no longer could that section of the Bible be questioned is its historical content. But the scoffers did not change their ways, they just set their collected sights on yet other undiscovered history. So this begs the question, who was the person of faith? Was it the ones who by faith knew that Nineveh existed, or was it the ones who thought the Bible myth until it was proven correct? Let me take a totally uneducated guess and say the person with the most faith was the one who believed scripture without the artifacts. Now can we blame these people for their unbelief? No we can't. Because that judgement is left for another.

Now let us move along 150 years. Many more artifacts have been discovered in support of the Bible. But man being man many disagree and cast doubt on the historical nature of the Bible. So in the face of gathering evidence many took a totally new path. For you see that scholars became famous by disagreeing with the Bible. They received awards from this world. Their articles were published in the best of technical journals. They were invited to the best parties. Their articles were published and the masses read their dribble. Some looked to God and said how can you let these fallen men do this to your good Name. Others read the dribble and identified with it, to them it was truth, it felt as the ground beneath their feet. Rock solid as truth but with a sweet smell that always lead to success in this world.

That's a very dishonest portrait of what critical scholarship has been. Historical scholarship evolved out of the liberal Protestant movement, which in turn evolved out of the Renassaince. All biblical studies at the time theorized about Scripture with developed ideas about history and philosophy and it still does this today. Of course the theories had to change with new data coming in, just like any other science, but they were always moreso interpretations of the data at hand, and given our excavations these days the data shows remarkably no pre-exilic Israel. The only scholars that posit an historical united and divided kingdoms are the ones still drowning the German romanticism/idealism of the 18th centuries which have lead to the source criticisms of Wellhausen, these days critical scholars are moving much more away from those baseless myths of "pure origins" and more towards an acceptance of placing "Israel" as an ancient Middle Eastern cultural artifact, albeit one that holds a great deal of meaning for contemporary religion.

de Wette's reconstruction of ancient Israel is really just a romantic tract for the unification of Germany in which the myth is being placed within an ancient collection of sacred texts. Drawing especially on the works of Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1802) and Jacob Friedrich Fries (1773-1843), and strongly influenced by a romanticism that led him to view religion as a matter of aesthetics and feeling, de Wette systematized various intellectual strands into a dialectic of the development of true religion (liberal German Protestantism, of course) out of false religion (post-exilic Judaism, of course). It is this dialectic that he applied to the Holy Scriptures; this was his “method.” The development proceeds as follows. First there was Hebraismus, the religion of the patriarchs and of Israel in pre-exilic times, which went through several stages:

1.) pre-Mosaic polytheistic Hebraismus

2.) Mosaic Hebraismus

3.) degenerated polytheistic-Mosaic Hebraismus

4.) the ideal Hebraismus of the Prophets and Poets

In this series, 1 and 3 are bad, while 2 and 4 are good. Then comes the Exile, and de Wette makes this the end of Hebraismus (overall a better thing than not) and the beginning of Judaism (an entirely degraded form of Hebraismus, of no value). One can see the deem anti(Judaism/Semitism) in his work running through. Liberal German Protestant universalism, of course, had no room for the Jewish particularists living in Germany.

These historical models are all but dead in contemporary biblical studies (and if they're not, they should be). They have been replaced (and of course they merged into), newer ways of doing history which look primarily into archeological and anthropological motifs while keeping an eye on literary criticism. Scholars are moving away from source criticisms and redaction criticisms, much more towards a free play of the text with the available archeological data, which keeping in mind that 'data' and 'interpretation' change all the time. We may discover a text in the sand tomorrow that changes the entire paradigm, (which is what keeps it interesting and fun). We may also find textual parallels within extant texts from DSS, for example, which give new ways of thinking about ancient Judaisms, as scholars have been doing very recently with the Two Powers in Heaven scholarship.

Now for a brief note about contemporary historical criticisms of the Old Testament: As far as Genesis and the Torah are concerned, I think it's safe to say that most biblical scholars are minimalists as far as history is concerned. In other words no one is interested in an historical Moses, or dating the Exodus these days, let alone an historical Jacob or Abraham or Sarah. These are recognised as stories composed and written many centuries after the times in which they are set. It follows then that Joshua has likewise been minimalised, so to speak, as far as history is concerned. There are some who might try to find history in parts of Judges but the days when scholars debated the amphictyony as a critical institution of ancient Israelite society are long gone. In the biblical studies history wars, the line sits at Saul, David and Solomon. As yet, there is still no independent evidence to verify the stories in Samuel (Saul and David) or 1 Kings (Solomon). It's only in 2 Kings that we start to find a story world peopled by characters and relating events for which we can find other attestation. And even then, the other attestation does not necessarily agree with the bibical account. But at least we know that some of the kings in 2 Kings were real people.

There is, of course, another account of this history, the book of Chronicles, 1 & 2 Chronicles/Paralipomena - the Greek name means the things left out. However, the problem with Chronicles is that not only does it include material not found in Samuel or Kings but the portrait of David and Solomon found in Chronicles is markedly different to that in Samuel and Kings. Indeed, Chronicles is mostly concerned with the Temple cult and so David here appears in a very idealised almost priestly form and Solomon after him. It omits the story of Bathsheba, Absalom's rebellion and other less than flattering accounts of David. So Chronicles account of these stories is generally not regarded as having much historical merit at all.

Related to Chronicles is Ezra-Nehemiah, which in Jewish bibles is counted one book but in Christian bibles is counted as two. And just like Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah is very problematic for doing any history. Parts of both texts are related in first person, however neither Ezra nor Nehemiah seem to be aware of each other's existence, which is odd to say the least because they appear to be contemporaries in the text. Is one fiction and the other historical? The problem, which is which? And what then is the relationship of Ezra-Nehemiah to Haggai and Zechariah which appear to have another account of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple. Is there history in any of these four texts? And then there is 1 Esdras which is another version of the material in Ezra-Nehemiah and some from Chronicles with some original content of its own. In other words, it's mostly derivative and not without problems at that.

Whatever one can say about Esther, one certainty is that this is a fiction designed to provide a scriptural warrant for Purim. Tobit, any history there, most unlikely. Judith? If that's history I'll eat it. Ruth is a lovely story but can it really serves as a history especially as it concerns the ancestors of David, who is likely to be a fictional character. Job? To read Job as history is a meaningless exercise. The text is not interested in providing historical details such as when or even where Job lived. The text, of course, is a script and Job is likely to be a sacred drama of some sort. Jubilees is a retelling of much of Torah.

When we turn to the rest of the biblical literature it gives little or no help in writing a history of events. Psalms, Proverbs, Qohelet, Wisdom and Sirach might be useful for writing a history of religion. Lamentations and Song of Songs are of little use to history work. Daniel is prophetic commentary on the events around Antiochus Epiphanes in the 2nd century BCE and so useful in that sense. 4 Ezra is prophetic commentary on the destruction of the Second Temple.

Only 1 and 2 Maccabees seem to be doing any real sort of history and even there we have to be careful. 2 Maccabees is more interested in a theological interpretation of events and does not cover the same breadth as 1 Maccabees. 3 and 4 Maccabees on the other hand are not interested in history, as we understand it, at all.

Many years before this another man would refuse to have faith. He heard a story from his friends about a glorious event. Yet he would not belief or trust his friends to tell the truth. He was his own rock and did not need another. His world was what he alone could touch and he alone could see. The senses of another trusted friend was not enough to sway his heart. He declared that unless he could touch and see with his own eyes he would not believe. So God knowing all from the beginning used this man to teach us all a lesson. A lesson of faith. This man Thomas, did not have faith. In many ways this story describes many people in the world today.

What do you think, Thomas, err Allan

That's also dishonest. Probably most of the biblical scholars believe in God, and a fair number (the ones that aren't Islamic or Jewish), believe in Jesus. No one in the NT gave any indication that being in Christ meant to believe that the OT is historical (partly because the OT didn't really exist at the time - all there was was Scripture some of which had more weight than others). But no one questioned, doubted or asked or answered anything to do with the history of these texts. What they did was expound upon them in writing their own (hi)stories of ancient Israel, Josephus certainly didn't question whether or not David or Solomon existed, but I don't think he really cared, he wrote a Midrash of the stories to give his fellow post-70CE Jews an (hi)storical identity rooted in ancient and sacred Scripture. Contemporary Christians should, I believe, understand that their Scripture is not history, and that reading it that way is just plain wrong and ignorant. Scripture is Scripture; history is history.

Allan

[franktalk]

It is you who are dishonest. Oh, I can't prove it but it is true none the less. For you see I live in faith. You know, that thing the NT says we should do. But from scripture I find no other path to God except faith. Why do you think that is true? Being a man of faith I assume that is the way God intended for us to seek Him. Unless of course you allegorize the scripture and change faith to something else like having the correct change for a bus. Now I believe that God made the heavens and the earth. By the way I am very impressed with the creation. Now someone with intellect to do that, and the power to do that, I have to respect and fear, a healthy fear mind you. So I assume and correctly so that a God who can do all can of course stop us from having a trail of data crumbs that lead to Him. So with my faith I assume that a search for God in the creation is a fools game. Well I am happy to report that my assumption was correct. There are fools who will play that game. So how is the game so far?

[seanD]

That's a completely horrible way of looking at it. I never said 'you' were intellectually inferior, I said that Biblical literalism was wrong and that those who held those views were either intellectually dishonest or simply haven't studied very much by way of what critical scholars theorize.


You missed my point. I could care less what anyone thinks of me or my belief. But the world looks down on Christians who take Genesis literally, because they've been grossly deceived into believing a naturalistic sham. But the sham has been guised as science, and so successfully peddled by the intellectuals of the world, that I think a lot of Christians fold under that pressure, which you could call a form of persecution (being looked down upon as an intellectual inferior for not buying it). This forces them into a compromise of Genesis.

[popaface]

You missed my point. I could care less what anyone thinks of me or my belief. But the world looks down on Christians who take Genesis literally, because they've been grossly deceived into believing a naturalistic sham. But the sham has been guised as science, and so successfully peddled by the intellectuals of the world, that I think a lot of Christians fold under that pressure, which you could call a form of persecution (being looked down upon as an intellectual inferior for not buying it). This forces them into a compromise of Genesis.

Conspiracy theories! That's all you can possibly believe! What absolute baseless clap-trap!

[seanD]

Conspiracy theories! That's all you can possibly believe! What absolute baseless clap-trap!

Huh? :hrm:

[popaface]

It is you who are dishonest. Oh, I can't prove it but it is true none the less. For you see I live in faith. You know, that thing the NT says we should do. But from scripture I find no other path to God except faith. Why do you think that is true? Being a man of faith I assume that is the way God intended for us to seek Him. Unless of course you allegorize the scripture and change faith to something else like having the correct change for a bus. Now I believe that God made the heavens and the earth. By the way I am very impressed with the creation. Now someone with intellect to do that, and the power to do that, I have to respect and fear, a healthy fear mind you. So I assume and correctly so that a God who can do all can of course stop us from having a trail of data crumbs that lead to Him. So with my faith I assume that a search for God in the creation is a fools game. Well I am happy to report that my assumption was correct. There are fools who will play that game. So how is the game so far?

What nonesense. You talk as if I have no faith in God or belief in the Christian mysteries. I'm not dishonest, I've been more than honest about the validity of your faith about the history of historical criticisms and about contemporary trends, if you don't like it just say it but don't hide behind sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling out: "Lalala, I don't believe you!"

You may look at creation, as everyone does, and think that it's obvious that the world is a 6000 year old building project, as nobody intelligent does. But you certainly can't doubt that others look at creation and experience a sense of majesty as well. You simply presume they don't because you're a narrow-minded Biblical literalist that has never thought long and hard about another persons opinion in your life. Congrats for being intolerant and ignorant.

Allan

[seanD]

Conspiracy theories! That's all you can possibly believe! What absolute baseless clap-trap!

Popaface, I have no clue what you mean by this. Can you please explain.

[popaface]

Popaface, I have no clue what you mean by this. Can you please explain.

"Everyone is decieved by a naturalistic sham" - that's a conspiracy theory, it's baseless and the only way you can possibly maintain this very ignorant possition is by pretending that everything that scientists observe about the world is a hoax.

Allan

[jo7241974]

What nonesense. You talk as if I have no faith in God or belief in the Christian mysteries. I'm not dishonest, I've been more than honest about the validity of your faith about the history of historical criticisms and about contemporary trends, if you don't like it just say it but don't hide behind sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling out: "Lalala, I don't believe you!"

You may look at creation, as everyone does, and think that it's obvious that the world is a 6000 year old building project, as nobody intelligent does. But you certainly can't doubt that others look at creation and experience a sense of majesty as well. You simply presume they don't because you're a narrow-minded Biblical literalist that has never thought long and hard about another persons opinion in your life. Congrats for being intolerant and ignorant.

Allan

What do you believe is the fate of those who do not believe what you believe? Is any allowance given in the criteria for being saved which covers different eras of earth's history, and thus the available knowledge would have differed? I.E.:

1) Those who lived during the real period of time which the myth's of the OT were written--IOW, anyone who lived before the birth of Christ.

a. those who believed in Christ
b. those who did not believe in Christ

2) Those who got to hear Christ's teachings in person.

a. those who believed in Christ
b. those who did not believe in Christ

3) Those who lived after Christ's resurrection, but before knowledge existed about your superior theology.

a. those who believe in Christ
b. those who do not believe in Christ

4) Those who lived after Christ's resurrection AFTER knowledge existed about your superior theology.

Do you believe God is unchanging?

[seanD]

"Everyone is decieved by a naturalistic sham" - that's a conspiracy theory, it's baseless and the only way you can possibly maintain this very ignorant possition is by pretending that everything that scientists observe about the world is a hoax.

Allan

Once again you missed my point!

I never said the world itself doesn’t believe this sham, or the intellectuals who promote it, despite the fact that it’s so utterly ridiculous to imagine that one cell organisms evolved into the complexity -- DNA, RNA, eukaryotic, prokaryotic, proteins, et al. -- we see today through random mutations, in addition to the fossil history being completely contradictory to this sham. The secular world wants to believe it, because as Paul said they “became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:21), and that "they were given over to a strong delusion and believed a lie" (2 Thess 2:10-11). But since what Paul described shouldn’t apply to Christians -- since they do acknowledge and glorify God -- it’s been a nagging puzzle to me why Christians would allow themselves to be duped by this world religion. The only explanation I come up with is out of pressure of intellectual conformity. It's not a pleasant experience being looked down upon by the majority as a religious ignoramus, or worse, a religious nut.

[franktalk]

Popaface,

You do realize that I am totally making fun of your position. It is obvious that your view will not change so I am chatting past you to others reading this thread. If you had a clue you would know this. But of course the universe revolves around you so all post must deal with you alone.

I would like to know your view on the emerging church? I figure since your view is so close to their view that you might shed some light on their position.

[abu njoroge]

I see spiritual truth in the bible, I do not take all of it as literal truth. I lean more towards the Gap theory. What is time to a being that has no beginning or end?

[RBerman]

I see spiritual truth in the bible, I do not take all of it as literal truth. I lean more towards the Gap theory. What is time to a being that has no beginning or end?
By that logic God can't know anything propositionally unless he's experienced it. What is ice cream to a being with no mouth? But if you don't take the Bible as literal truth, there's really no need to jump through the antiquated 19th century hoops of the Gap Theory, which the text doesn't even hint at. Just say you don't believe Genesis is historical, and be done with it. Next up: Exodus!

[Philosophickle]

But if you don't take the Bible as literal truth, there's really no need to jump through the antiquated 19th century hoops of the Gap Theory, which the text doesn't even hint at. Just say you don't believe Genesis is historical, and be done with it. Next up: Exodus!

Agreed.

[Pai Geacademe]

What a positively exhilarating conversation. What to slay, popaface.

seanD's having some trouble accepting reality at the moment. Dude's deriding YECs, no less. As if his science-suspicious kind has ANY room to talk.

[aegis]

The problem I see in interpreting Genesis as allegory, is that if you do, then everything else unravels like a thread in a delicate piece of fabric.

If you don't believe the story, then you must explain why Jesus believed it.

If you don't believe the genealogies, then you must discount Luke's genealogy of Christ.

If you don't believe there was an Adam, who fell and thus corrupted mankind, then Paul, who is supposed to be inspired by God, believed a fairy tale.

There's no way of rationalizing this. If Genesis is not true then the bible is not the inspired word of God.

And then from there, our faith -- which hinges on his word -- begins to get shaky, because what else is not true? Is the story of Abraham true? If not, then all of Judaism crumbles, along with Christianity -- which is affixed to Judaic history. If Luke's genealogy is not true, the virgin birth is put into question, and thus other things about the gospel story.

And on and on...

Bottom line, you can't believe in evolution and be a Christian. The two are like oil and water. It's impossible. You can try and balance those two, but you're essentially compromising God's word, and thus the results I stated above inevitably occur. There's no way you can sustain faith like that for long with God's word -- which is vital to our belief -- in doubt, despite the rationalizations to do so.

I'm saying, perhaps Genesis is true and literal, but YEC is interpreting it wrong.

On the flip side, you can't deny the physical evidence that sustains the evolutionary theory, particularly the fossil history (actually it doesn't sustain it, it derails it -- if it's analyzed correcting), unless you argue the fossil history has been intentionally manipulated by either God or Satan. This is what I'm trying to understand. What are YEC's rationalizations for this?
one should not think in all or none.

Genesis chapter one could be allegory but chapter 2 to 12 could be historical, or chapter 12 to 50 could be historical regarding patriarch but genesis 1 could be metaphorical.

By reading genesis chapter 1 as metaphorical does not mean that you have to deny the historicity of Abraham or Adam or Joseph

[seanD]

one should not think in all or none.

Genesis chapter one could be allegory but chapter 2 to 12 could be historical, or chapter 12 to 50 could be historical regarding patriarch but genesis 1 could be metaphorical.

By reading genesis chapter 1 as metaphorical does not mean that you have to deny the historicity of Abraham or Adam or Joseph

Where in the world do you draw that line other than hope or speculation? That's like saying, the gospels authors made up all the accounts of Jesus' miracles up to the resurrection, but the resurrection was real :huh:

[aegis]

the interpretation of the Bible is depending on many principles.

The Bible is God's word to humankind. By word it would follow the rules of language and human communication.

When I say that the Liberals are LEFT wing and the Conservatives are RIGHT wing or on the right hand of the spectrum I do mean literally that they are on the LEFT or RIGHT side. When one say that I am taking the moral 'HIGH' and that others depraved and taken the "LOW' ground. Someone may have "FALLEN' in love or someone "CLIMBED OUT' of one's debt.

In language taking everything and every word literally might not be the correct way of interpretation.

Similarly, in the Bible, taking every word literally may not be the correct way of Biblical interpretation. In fact, we might have misread the bible and God's view. Hence, my point is that not taken every bible verse literally might actually be the right thing. The key is in the principles of biblical interpretation. Firstly, there are the different genres, different literary styles and types, different cultural background.

Other biblical interpretation principle is one should interpret the difficult and controversial passages based on more clearer and less controversial passages as the base.

Some examples of genre

e.g. When Jesus was telling a parable, it means that those characters in the parables were fictitious and was constructed to convey a certain truth.

e.g. when the Jews record their genealogies, they did not record every generation, and when they wrote so and so was the 'son' of so and so, the 'son' meant descendent and not literally the second generation son.

When you say that either one should take all bible verses as strict literal meaning or one should take neither as literal, I think this is in violation of the principle of biblical interpretation.

[seanD]

Jesus spoke in parables and allegory to teach. Prophets spoke in parables and allegory to prophesy. Certain kings and rulers told poetic stories, hymns, or songs. However, Jews did not write allegorical narratives. Please understand the difference.

Moreover, when prophets like Ezekiel cloaked their prophesy in an allegorical story (such as Ezekiel 23), the story was always so absurd that it was either obvious or it was explained -- or both -- or the subject and the character in which the story represented was revealed (hence the revelation that Ezekiel's allegory pertained to Samaria and Jerusalem).

Jews told parables, they used metaphors, they used fact similes, they told allegory, but Jews did not write allegorical stories, ever, not in the bible, and not in the Qumran scrolls. In order to dismiss the book of Genesis as literal history, you have to argue that it is a mythological story, which is fine, if that's your pleasure, but don't confuse a mythological narrative with an allegorical narrative. The latter is just a justification or "nicer," but an inaccurate way of a pro-evolution Christian saying the story ain't fact.

Problem with arguing Genesis as a mythological story is that you still have the problem of the originators -- being that Jews did not have a habit of telling mythological stories (unless of course you're a skeptic and presupposed to the belief that the supernatural doesn't exist, therefore, this to you discredits all of the bible). But the biggest problem is what I asked before -- how and where do you draw the line of what books are myth and what books are non-myth, which stories are history and which stories are fiction, and how do you base your long term faith on that?