Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Scripture is to be interpreted literally, i.e., as literature, in accordance with its natural meaning and the normal rules of grammar. Literature has different forms -- historical, symbolic, personification, metaphor, etc. So it is incumbent upon the reader to ask, "What kind of passage is this?" The Bible being interpreted in its literal sense has been the orthodox view since the beginning of Christianity. Unfortunately, in reaction to the Reformation, the Roman church weakened on Sola Scriptura. At the Council of Trent it improperly added the "Holy Mother Church" as an authority of interpretation.

Scripture is also a supernatural communication. It was given by supernatural inspiration, and our interpretation is aided by the supernatural illumination of the Holy Spirit. It contains supernatural events in which God suspends Lee's "fixed laws of nature" and intervenes directly. Jeremiah 33:25 is not some kind of absolute that hamstrings God to perform.

Lee -- you are in grave error in your interpretation of this passage and refuse to accept how the Bible itself interprets this passage and what conservative scholars have said about it for centuries (see my last post). I see your adherence to this interpretation as forcing your SEC model of creation on the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to impress its model on you. The question of a talking serpent has nothing to do with determining whether or not the serpent had a voice box. That's reading modern day science into an ancient text -- an improper hermeneutic. By doing this you weaken the appropriate meaning of the text, and I suspect do that so your agenda can be supported.

When one looks at Genesis 2 with the attitude of, "What kind of passage is this?" one clearly sees it is meant to be historical. It might use symbolism but that does not mean the passage is an indiscernible mixture of history and symbolism. If that were the case then anyone could freely determine for themselves what they wanted it to say. Did the snake actually speak through a voice box is irrelevant to the passage. The account centers on what the snake said!

This chapter sets up the entire foundation for the Christian doctrine of salvation -- the first persons on earth disobeying God. It is not important whether the snake is symbolic or an actual talking snake. If symbolic then the meaning of the passage is obvious. If the serpent actually talked, then it required a miracle. This sort of scenario appears numerous times throughout the Bible. Arguing for a "fixed laws of science" explanation for this account or for Balaam's donkey (or for Jonah and the whale, or for how the spiritual forces of angels and demons comfort or confront us each day) misses the point. The point is, did these events actually take place in history? Sometimes God uses symbolism to aid in the communication of the history; sometimes he uses miracles. Don't put God in box.

In the garden, the historical Eve was confronted by a symbolic or an actual serpent representing Satan, and that historical encounter plunged humankind into sin. Focusing on snakes having a voice box, or forcing God to obey Jeremiah 33:25 takes our eye off the main point and offers no explanatory power. It never will.

Hi Bret,


You and I are more often than not on the same wavelength.
This morning, BEFORE reading your post, I was thinking about my conversion process, and when putting down the Bible not wanting to read anymore.
I firmly believe that God spoke to me in an audible voice.
I have to say though, that other than this one instance I cannot recollect other times when I heard God audibly.
So now you know where I stand:
I believe in audible communication from God (but I think, form personal experience, this is the exception rather than the rule)


Lucien

Lee ...

Even though I don't agree with your views on many things ... I would still like to try
and understand how & why you believe them to be true?

I would also like to hear from Stu ... about how he reconciles his OE stance with some
of the (seemingly) new revelations about his views on literal translations?

I explained to you guys (over a 100 posts ago) about the ONLY possible way that I could
ever reconcile the Bible with an Old Earth view! Dave seemed to be fairly satisfied with it?

A couple of quickies?

1). When God "spoke" to Moses up on the mountain ... was this audible?

2). If rivers rarely change their course ... then why aren't there more Grand Canyons?
(unless ... these rivers are only thousands of years old ... instead of billions!)

Fair Questions ... seeking "Good" answers?

p.s. If I want to see an Ass (donkey) speak ... I only need to talk into a mirror!


20 Bret*11

Lee said: "The topology of the valleys, hills, and mountains would not radically change due to a worldwide or local flood"

I say: I see a relatively small earthquake causing a tsunami wreaking havoc in Japan, and that is in comparison only a tiny bit of water compared to Noah's Flood.

Alos, if I were a gambling man, then I'd rather put my money on a global cataclysm to change the topology of the earth than slow and gradual uniformitarian processes.
And more and more geologists (including the secular ones) are in agreement. Of course the non-Bible believing ones would only allow local catastrophes, not a global cataclysm.

Hi Bret,
Don't worry, I don't plan on joining them unless all the Protestants throw me out based on my Progressive Creationist views and an old earth mentality. I just wanted to show you that there are a lot of Christians out there that are on my side to refute Stu's attempt to marginalize my views. I also still believe the Noah Flood was local and just in the area where all the people were at that time, so don't get too excited!

Hi Lucien,

I have two quick answers for you related to your recent post. 

Talking Donkey
I believe that donkeys being somewhat intelligent mammals, but certainly not at a human level, have a limited capability to communicate their feelings, needs, and to a lesser degee their thoughts. They can also vocalize to a very limited degree and control these sounds. If the donkey was in dwelt, there may have been sufficient mental capacity to hold a rudimentary physical communication. People say that horses and donkeys are fairly smart as far as mammals go and trainable.  Possibly the donkey was capable of expressing its reluctance through both body language and vocalizations sufficient to get its point across to Balaam its owner. 

Many mammals also have the capability to listen and respond to human words. My dog certainly knows the word 'walk' and more recently its spelling then gets extremely excited and vocal (barks) when he hears these words or letters from me. I have even heard cats, dogs, and bird, make statements using human words on videos. So I don't doubt that the donkey could have uttered something intelligible to Balaam in the Biblical story. No one knows how clear the utterance was, but it was understood by Balaam and recorded in the Bible. 

Also, it may be another example of symbolism, because it seems odd that Balaam was not in shock that the donkey was talking to him. He had no strange reaction to a speaking donkey which seems very unusual. The Bible could be telling us that Balaam understood the donkey's behaviors to mean what was stated. We will never know for sure. 

The fact that the angel could not be seen at first by Balaam indicates a spiritual or mental presence and not a physical or real one. So, I also believe this communication with the donkey could possibly be between their minds and not through verbal speech. 

Lost Eden Artifacts
The water flow of the Tigris and Euphrates into the Persian Gulf or even the effect of storms and tidal action as the Persian Gulf water level rose would have been sufficient to erase any trace of the garden. This would have nothing to do with Noah's Flood, just normal erosive effects in nature. There is no scientific reason to think that the Tigris and Euphrates were relocated significantly from their previous location due to the great flood. The topology of the valleys, hills, and mountains would not radically change due to a worldwide or local flood. While rivers do change course from time to time due to soil erosion and deposits in different areas, the drainage basins that they support are largely fixed for long geological time periods as the various mountain ranges grow and decline due to plate tectonic activity at extremely low rates and over tens of millions of years. The mountains of Arat have been there for millions of years and so have these rivers. Their paths to the gulf on a large scale have changed very slowly and to only a very limited degree. This is why many of the experts search for relics of early human civilization at the north end of the Persian Gulf and near the juncture of these two rivers. 

Lee

Catholicism = Religion = Man's attempt to earn God's favor!

Christianity = Relationship = God's gift of salvation offered to ALL ... No strings attached!

Why the Catholic Church loses 10 followers for every 1 that it gains!

Rampant Child Sexual Abuse!
Historic misuse of Theocratic power & influence!
Adoration & worship of the position of Pope!
Adoration & worship of Idols & Saints!
Geo-centrism Black-eye!
Crusades Black-eye!
WWII Antisemitism Black-eye!
Transubstantiation!
Perpetual Virginity!
Days of Obligation!
Purgatory!
Prayers for the Dead!
Penance!
Apocrypha!
and ... of course ... Filet-O-Fish Fridays!

Just to mention a few!

Lee ... I know your wife is Catholic!
But ... so is mine!

Don't give into this Mystery Religion!
There's NO WAY that you or I could EVER fit into the Catholic Church !!!
Go and talk to your local priest!
Ask him some questions about Science (and even better yet)... the Bible!
Need I say more?

Pray for the Catholics! ... but don't even joke about joining them!



20 Bret*11

Can I remind people that it counts for nothing what certain people (Collins, Miller, Lee, Stu, Bret, Lucien) or denominations (Catholics, Protestants, etc) believe.
What matters is what Scriptures says.

So arguing from what the Catholics or the Protestants believe is irrelevant.

Sola Scriptura!

Please.


Thanks,
Lucien

Lee ...

Bret has also claimed that all versions of the Bible were translated correctly since God
has chosen people that can convey His true meaning. Are you now stating that the NET
version isn't correct as literally translated?

WHAT ???

I don't think so!

You must be over-extrapolating my earlier statements about the ORIGINAL Scriptures ...
when they were written through DIRECT inspiration of the Holy Spirit (God) !!!

I NEVER said that God chooses each and every person who decides to either:

a). Cash-in on re-paraphrasing the BEST SELLING BOOK ever written!
b). Purposefully produce a NEW translation of the Bible to serve THEIR own views!

We have Gender-Neutral and Politically-Correct versions of the Bible!
We have the "New Worlds Translation" tailor-made JUST for the JW's ... and NOT even
available to the general public!
I am a little surprised that someone hasn't (i.e. Hugh Ross)... came out with the
Old-Earth Version of the Bible yet! Maybe it's because there IS just TOO much derision
amongst the OE collective as a group?

The ORIGINAL Scriptures are without error!
ALL other toyed-with translations are filled with error ... to varying degrees!

This is why I (and most serious apologist) choose to use and work from the "King James" (KJV) !!!
Yes! ... there are some mistranslations in the KJV as well ... but since this is one
of the oldest, most trusted, and widely used versions of the Bible ... these areas of
mistranslation are very well documented ... and explained !!!

Yes ... I own, read, and trust several other translations of the Bible (to some extent)!
But ... if ever quote from a version (other than the KJV)... it is usually due to a
clearer use of modern English ... rather than an opposing view point!

I'm sure that we ALL have a copy of the KJV (or at the very least ... online access)!
So ... it might be wise for us to try and stick to this "Gold-Standard" when playing
the Scripture card?

If someone has serious problems with the KJV ... I would love to hear why?

ALSO ...

Lee ... you seem to be implying that you believe that the Flood was Global?
Am I reading you right ... or have I read more into your statements than you intended?



20 Bret*11

Holy Scriptures, Stu!  I haven't started any new church and am closely aligned with the Catholics on my views. This is about as orthodox as anyone might get. Many Catholics view science, as I do, that it is not a threat to our common religion, nor is evolution. As long as people view it as a God given natural process that God created to purposefully create all species.  Many Catholics are supportive of the OE slowly evolving Creationism view. Collins is a Catholic that headed up the human genome project and is a Darwinist. Ken Miller is a Catholic and also a Darwinist and constantly battles the YE views nationally on behalf of those that believe that Nature was created by God. Both men believe God creates using Darwinian processes and species are contingent. This particular aspect of their belief, seems untenable to me since it logically  conflicts with my interpretation of the Bible verses that pre-determination is real and the future is completely known by God. Obviously you don't like the Catholic position either since you are attacking Darwinism or anything even close to it? That is okay, but please don't condemn me as unorthodox, exaggerating my views, and as starting my own church to vilify me to our readers. You did this earlier and it didn't end well. 

I do differ with them however, on predetermination.  Some Catholics obviously don't believe in it while I do. This applies to many Protestant factions as well.   For me the Bible is very clear about God having complete foreknowledge.   We have debated this topic at length already with neither of us changing our view.   From earlier dialogues I know you don't agree with pre determinism either as you believe it conflicts with free will. However, except for thinking that God pops all new species into existence, maybe you are not that far of from Collins position after all since he supports a contingent future. He also believes in fixed laws of nature as a scientist which is different than you however. If we could only resolve the fixed laws controversy that would help greatly. I don't know how anyone that reads and understands the following verse could believe that   God would be changing the natural laws on a regular basis:

Jeremiah 33:25 But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth. 26-Just as surely as I have done this, so surely will I never reject the descendants of Jacob. Nor will I ever refuse to choose one of my servant David's descendants to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Indeed, I will restore them and show mercy to them." 

I agree with you, Stu, that this chapter is about the commitment that God has to Abraham's descendants, but you continue to fail to see from this verse that God has this same commitment to the natural laws that the universe was created and operates with. They will not change according to His covenant. Anyway this is what God said literally. Take it up with the Lord and quit arguing with me about it if you want to believe it was symbolic and He didn't mean it literally. I believe God literally meant it and so do many others; it is a foundational belief in science and engineering. 

[Stu]- 'SEC says the historic Christian faith, as promulgated by the orthodox Church, is the real threat to the future of the faith since it makes "absurd claims" like the Bible is literally true;'

This is another total misrepresentation of my views; more hype, extrapolation, exaggeration, and alarmism that you are posting.  You know as well as  I do that the Bible is not totally literal or documentary. It contains a great deal of symbolism throughout. We have a disagreement on some of the symbolic passages (or literal from your perspective) in Genesis and you're posting statements that call my views unorthodox even though they align with the modern Catholic Church views and that I am labeling all literal verses of the Bible as absurd even though you know that I believe in the inerrancy of scripture. If you think you can interpret the verses that I pointed out literally without logical conflict with other verses, then please do so. I am not the first to surface how the Bible conflicts with itself and natural laws if all verses are read literally. I have only pointed them out for the literalists to explain and substantiate a logical rational view to support their position. I don't believe you can, but I hope you will try.   It is up to you to explain why they don't logically conflict from the literal perspective that you are taking for just these few verses since you have claimed that everything in Genesis is literal. To Lucien's credit, he started to do this. I hope you will do the same as you further describe how the trees could be literal real trees. 

You have explained the serpent as possessed by Satan but didn't describe however how the Serpent was able to talk without a voice box and without a large enough brain to support speech.  4) Did Satan or God modify the snake's physical anatomy instantaneously to allow this and later change it back or are the words spoken by the snake symbolic of Satan tricking Eve through her thoughts? 5) You have insisted that this interchange was literal so you must believe that there was a physical exchange of words between the snake and Eve. Is this correct?

 I have already shown you a way out of this dilemma, if you take certain verses symbolically. Why are you being so insistent that these Ge 2 and 3 verses must be literally interpreted in light of extensive symbolism used throughout the Bible. What is going on that makes your position so entrenched?  6) What is it that makes these verses immune from symbolism. Is it that you don't believe God or the Bible uses symbolism?  I can show you many examples so it must be something else. 

[Stu]- 'and that it (the Bible) engages in "hype and alarmism" when it defends those claims: " 

Contrary, to what you claim, I didn't state that the Bible did this, I stated that some of your statements that you posted were full of  hype and alarmism.  You are still engaged in this behavior it seems. 

How about just explaining the conflicts that I have brought up previously and tell us how you rationalize them away from a literal perspective?

Lee

Hi Lee


Thanks for your post.

You believe Adam and Eve were real people, but the talking serpent was not real.
I suspect you believe that Balak and Balaam were real (Numbers 22). But was the talking donkey symbolic?
My question would be:
How do symbols communicate with real existing people? I talk to persons, who talk back, a conversation.
I do sometimes speak to animals, but they don't talk back (other than a meow). Balaam has a brief conversation with a donkey!
Just like we both believe that people can be demon-possessed, could the snake be? Can the donkey be given supernatural features (such as speech, which is not natural for a donkey)?

I was planning on dropping the point of the Garden of Eden, since you and I have extremely different views on Noah's Flood, which to me seems like we are at an impasse.
However, then you stated, and I quote "The water flow would have erased all traces of these real or symbolic 'trees' and 'snake' by now."
I wonder how you can state this at one part in your post, but prior to it you say "The flood didn't destroy the surface of the earth or change it's topography significantly".
Sounds quite the contradiction to me:
Why does one bit of water not destroy the surface, but another body of water does erase all traces of what was previously there?
You cannot have your cake and eat it!
As you could have suspected, I do not believe the current Tigris and Euphrates are the same as the ones in Noah's day. He may be responsible for naming these new rivers the same, because he was reminded about them.
Just like we have a New York, but you'll find there is already an older York here (down south) in England!
Just because two things carry the same name does not necessarily mean they ARE the same thing.

The point you make about the NET translation is a fair one.
Let me make a few statements to which I believe we ALL agree.
1-A translation is a translation. (did I lose anyone yet?)
2-Even a good translation can never be as good as the original. (it is a different language for starters)
3-Most people (including us) are not fluent in Hebrew and old Greek (and Aramaic).
4-If we were, we would use the original text (which is God-breathed) and debate from there.

Now, what I (and Stu also) noted, is that you used this one translation to make a point, simply because it supports YOUR view. However, I copied a few other translations and none agree with NET, INCLUDING the YLT you have been raving about a few weeks/months ago.
You cleverly give the use of this NET translation a spin, and like I said, you are right in that it is a translation, but you must understand that both Stu and I rightfully point out that picking translations to suit your needs is poor tactics, and maybe you would be better of making a Lee translation and just stick with that.
(looking at which translation suits your view best is not the way to do this by the way. Taking Hebrew classes probably is)
I am not saying it is wrong to use the NET translation, but if ANY translation seems to deviate from most other mainstream translations, I would hesitate to build my case on it, and I think you would be wise to do the same.

Hope you can see my points.


Lucien

Hi Bret


Yes, I actually thought you would discern it is the same account, but the first paragraph an overview, with the second paragraph containing more detail.


It is petty amazing how we YE's do not only have the same (Biblical) account, but I just thought the very same as you this very weekend.
You and I seem to have the same "story". I don't think we have been very far off anyway, but yet it is the OE's that seem to be in the clinch with each other now.
For the discerning Old-Earthers among us, doesn't that strike you at least as interesting?

Now before somebody wants to draw attention away from this observation that is very important (both Lee and Stu cannot be right at the same time if they differ about something), I will haste to add that YE's do not have an answer for every single thing.
(if we did, we would be god)
But it would be worthwhile for all readers on this forum to reflect on what Bret said, and I concur.
The Young Earth clan has a much more coherent worldview (amongst themselves AND Scripture) than the OE's do.

Does that per se mean the YE's are correct?
I'll let the fence-sitters decide for themselves...


Lucien

Lucien here are my responses to your claims and questions.  

[Lucien]- 'these passages are clearly prozaic/narrative and thus historical.'

I have no doubt that these verses are historical just not all literal documentary due to the symbology.  6) How about a talking deceptive serpent that could trick Eve, was it real too or symbolic of Satan's temptations? Can the spiritual realm "son's of God" be made of flesh and blood, live on the earth and have sexual relations with human women as the Genesis verse states. 7) Can you describe your views on what characteristics the fruits of these trees mentioned have that would produce eternal life and knowledge of good and evil? Do you believe that by taking a bite of a real fruit that either of these two things would really happen?  I don't believe they would, please try to convince me that these are real trees, flesh and blood demons and a real living snake that had intellect and a voice box. 

[Lucien]- 'Lee, do I understand you know where the Garden of Eden is/was?'

The Bible tells us where:  the juncture of the Tigris, the Euphrates, the Pishon, and Gihon rivers.  Two of these rivers (Gihon and Pishon) have dried up since that time period and thought to be near the north end of the Persian Gulf. The flood didn't destroy the surface of the earth or change it's topography significantly, just changed the water level and drowned all the air breathing animals on it. The mountains of Arat still exist and form the same drainage basin as before the flood. This is a source of water still to this day for both the Tigris and Euphrates. Sea levels have risen since the last ice age but an underwater explorer could follow the present underwater topology from the north end of the gulf and pass right through the ancient site of Eden as he heads through the gulf. It could be quite a long swim past the straight of Hormuz. The Northern part of the Persian Gulf wasn't under water ~30,000 years ago as there was an ice age that significantly lowered the ocean level. Even 6000 years ago the water level was significantly lower than at present. The expert who authored the linked web page believes Eden to be under water at the northern end of the Persian Gulf and the Pishon is presently called the Wadi Batin and the Gihon is presently called the Karun.     

Sorry to disappoint you but I won't be selling any tickets from a boat. The water flow would have erased all traces of these real or symbolic 'trees'  and 'snake' by now.

Here is website for additional information on this. 
     http://ldolphin.org/eden/

Just because a lot of people believe something is real it doesn't mean that it is. There were a lot of uneducated people centuries ago that the world was flat and the elements were earth, water, wind, and fire. There are a lot of people that believe that the earth is very young and just a few thousand years old.  These beliefs, based on numbers of people that subscribe to it, however, cannot be used to substantiate whether it is a real material object.  Science was introduced by God Himself ('test everything, hold on to the good') as a method to separate fact from the fiction in people's minds.

[Lucien]- ' Would it be possible for men to be demon-possessed and have relations with women and have possessed offspring?'

I believe this is what really occurred. This is the main point that I was trying to make. The verses contain symbolism for the spiritual world. They were not literally sons of God walking on the earth and having sex with women but demon posessed people. The Genesis verses address both the physical and spiritual realms. The fruit of the trees were symbolic for trying to satisfy mankind's spiritual desire to know both good and evil and our spiritual desire to live forever independent of God.

Also, I did use the NET version purposefully to show what a straight literal interpretation of scripture can result in: conflict. Bret has also claimed that all versions of the Bible were translated correctly since God has chosen people that can convey His true meaning. 9) Are you now stating that the NET version isn't correct as literally translated?

Lee    

Brother Lucien ...

I was only trying to be fair and balanced with my criticisms!
Since I can find NO errors, misconceptions, or even a stray thought veering off course
when it comes to your Science, Theology, and the straight-up reading of the KJV ...
the only character flaw that I could exploit was your love of the most boring Sport
ever invented ... rivaled only by American Baseball !!!
I even have to concede to your point about which Sport is more worthy of being named "Foot"Ball !!!
Maybe we Americans should consider calling our Sport "Ruggedball" ???

I'm pretty sure that you were trying to show how the EXACT same event could be described
in two totally different ways ... with little similarity ... but without ANY contradiction?

Do you agree with my other two criticisms?

1). Lee needs to show us how he can protect the Deity of Jesus ... and the simple saving
Truth of His gospel message ... if "Man" can use his understanding about Science or History
to decide which parts of the Bible are fanciful narrative vs. those that are Word-for-Word FACT ???

2). Stu needs to share with us a COMPLETE model that can harmonize God's Word ...
which he has TOTAL faith in ... with a Billions of Years of (gradual?) Creation?

Is it just me ... or did you notice that if you sit 10 OE's down at a table ... then
go around one-by-one an ask them what EXACTLY that it is they believe ... you will get
10 completely different explanations on how they reached their conclusions?



20 Bret*11

Bret


Stop calling it soccer.
The rugby for wimps that you call football is actually played by hand, and not using the foot.

On a serious note, I hope you understand that that post was not per se about football, but more about the structure of the article?

Do you want another 'shot' to try and discern what it was about?


Lucien

Gentlemen ...

We're finally starting to air-out some REAL divisions in our personal views ...
that ultimately serve to achieve the same (most worthy of) Goals !!!
Lucien proved to us all ... that even when you condense an entire Soccer match down to
just a few descriptive sentences ... it is still unbearably BORING !!!

Stu ... (apparently) has come to realize the many possible dangers of extrapolating out
a consistent explanation of a Biblical based Billions of Years of Creation?

Lee ... has actually given us an extremely consistent way to reconcile (virtually) all
of the accepted secular views of Science ... with God's infallible Word !!!
Sadly ... the rest of us believe that Lee's solution has an undermining effect on the
overall credibility of the sanctity of The Bible!

I guess what I would like to see is:

How does Lee establish a secure safety net against Jesus being marginalized?

How does Stu reconcile his OE stance without a Biblically cohesive model?

How does Lucien possibly believe that Americans will ever care a wit about Soccer?


20 Bret*11

First we had Francis Collins starting the Church of BioLogos, a syncretism of the "Bio"sphere with the "Logos" of God. Now my friend Lee is starting the new Church of Slowly Evolving Creationism (SEC), a syncretism of Biologos' scientific model of Adam's evolution, with those parts of Paul with which he agrees -- sort of a 2X4 Enns combination.

The tenants of this new faith include:

(1) The Bible is only literal when it can be substantiated by science. For example, snakes don't talk and trees of life don't exist today, so the Garden encounter is "absurd." Never mind that the point of the story is not zoological, but about Satan entering into a snake to charm the first woman and deceive her. But Satan can't enter snakes, right? So, I guess I'll have to suppose to belong to this church that Satan couldn't enter Judas either. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that Satan even exists -- so why should I even consider talking about him, except as some religious symbol? On the contrary, Satan is a real entity even though science can't detect him.

(2) SEC uses translations of the Bible that it finds collaborate its claims. In this case the NET which translates Genesis 4:1 as, "I have created a man just as the LORD did!" SEC exposition tells us this means that Eve claims she "created a son just like the LORD did through the natural birth process." We know Eve as a disobedient and deceived person so why should I believe her claim to begin with? SEC also claims that God, who always tells the truth, is really deceiving us when He says that he "popped" man and woman into existence by his supernatural power (Genesis 2:7 and 2:22). I'm sorry, I'll take God's word over Eve's.

Plus the NET is a mistranslation here. The literal word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text says:

"and-the-man he-knew Eve wife-of-him and-she-conceived and-she-bore Cain and-she-said I-brought-forth man with Yaweh and-she-continued to-bear brother-of-him Abel ...." (Genesis 4:1)

And the literal Hebrew for Gen 2:7 is, "and-he-formed Yahweh God the-man dust from the-ground and-he-breathed into-the-nostrils-of-him breath-of life and-he-became the-man into-being living."

(3) SEC says the historic Christian faith, as promulgated by the orthodox Church, is the real threat to the future of the faith since it makes "absurd claims" like the Bible is literally true; and that it engages in "hype and alarmism" when it defends those claims: "How can it even defend itself in good conscience?" SEC asks? It says that science has reduced the Bible to an admixture of history and symbolisms and that it has the intelligence to discern between the two. Never mind that God chose to communicate His Word to all people for all ages in the format that He did. Dan Brown and the Jesus Seminar would be right at home at SEC.

(4) Jeremiah 33:25, "when interpreted properly by SEC" tells us that God fixed all the laws of nature in the beginning and will not violate them, and that everything occurs in accordance with these fixed laws. Hence the fixed law of human evolution cannot be violated -- God just can't "pop" Adam and Eve into existence. (SEC is unsure how miracles occur, except that God can intervene in the laws -- but only very rarely and only when the fixed natural laws aren't going to work for some reason -- like the incarnation; or turning water into wine).

The problem with this tenant of the SEC faith is that God never said this in Jer 33:25, or anywhere else. When correctly interpreted the Scripture is clearly talking about God not violating his promise to restore Israel after the Babylonian captivity. He will not violate His covenant with them. He likens His faithfulness as His "covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth." But does this mean that all the laws of physics in the universe are fixed? Of course not. God is referring to the dependability of the sun coming up in the morning and giving light to the day; and the moon and stars giving light at night. He is referring to the certainty that there will be waves on the ocean. And to the certainty that as long as the earth remains there will be seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter -- and that day and night shall not cease. How do I know this? Certainly not from SEC or from science, but because God clearly defines what He means by "fixed laws" in Jer 31:35-37 and Gen 8:32.

(5) SEC declares the magnificence of God (How Great Thou Art!) through His creative acts of evolution -- especially that of evolving "humans from apes" (sic). SEC can believe anything it wants to about human evolution -- but please don't blame it on God!


I'll stick with the traditional Church and absorb the accusations and labels of ignorant and narrow-minded. And I'll try my best to help it grow in Christ as I grow. It will survive long after SEC, Biologos and Darwinism all disappear -- just like phlogiston did.

http://creation.com/some-questions-for-theistic-evolutionists


Most topics already covered once or twice before, but a good reminder of some of the brain-gymnastics involved...

Gen. 9:8-17 talks about the rainbow.
Did you know that you need (at least) water-particles in the sky and sunlight shining on them?
Surely the rainbow would have been in existence once or more times in the 1600 years (or more if you believe in an old earth) it took from Adam to Noah's Flood?

What is allegorical or symbolic? Who decides?
Science? Or the (con)text?
A word study performed on the first 11 chapters of Genesis shows that these passages are clearly prozaic/narrative and thus historical.
Whereas portions from Psalms for example can also be poetic/allegorical.


Lee, do I understand you know where the Garden of Eden is/was?
If so, you should put up a booth and charge entrance fee?
Seriously, if you find it absurd that some people do believe a tree of good and bad, a tree of life and Angels with fiery swords did exist, don't you think it is equally absurd to send them on a quest to search for the Garden?
(and if you read the Bible you would read about a catastrophic global Flood that destroyed the surface of the earth)

And why are you quoting Gen. 4:1 from NET instead of your favoured Young's Literal Translation? Are you deviating just to enforce your point, which is poor strategy to put the weight of your argument on one specific translation and ignoring the other ones.
KJV reads:
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
The Hebrew qanah (7069) is translated created in context of God. For Eve it is better translated gotten or acquired.
NIV reads:
Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.[b] She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth[c] a man.”
NASB reads:
Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."
Your beloved YLT reads:
And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceiveth and beareth Cain, and saith, `I have gotten a man by Jehovah;'
None of them back up the NET and one should wonder why NET translated it thus. I think the other translations do a better job. Only God can truly create (bara) something from nothing.

Fortunately your next point shows more style, in that the blood from the ground probably did not literally cry out. (blood itself does not have a voice)
It could though, since the stones would cry out, and they don't have voices either.
Maybe God has such good ears that He can hear the blood seeping in-between the sand and rocks of the ground?

The passage about the Nephilim is indeed difficult, but not unovercomeable. That is, if you believe in (fallen) angels. Do you, Lee, believe in angles and demons? Or are they symbolic too? Can a person be demon-possessed? Would it be possible for men to be demon-possessed and have relations with women and have possessed offspring?

I'll stop here so I don't "create" a superlong post...

Stu, you have asked some good questions and made some interesting comments that I would like to respond to. I don't believe that any of my views would lead people to take the Bible as a myth. Please permit me to respond and explain for each question or claim.  

[Stu]-'If I don't accept the biblical account, then I'm making Genesis 6-9 non-historical as well as Genesis 2. If that's the case then the whole message about the corruption of mankind and God's judgment is distorted, if not eliminated altogether.' 

I have always viewed the Bible as being a mix of documentary and symbology (allegory).  In this case a substantial amount of allegory is used in chapter 2 while a large portion of the remainder of Genesis is documentary.    I have never believed that this symbology undermines Biblical credibility one bit. This symbology is mixed into many books and chapters of the Bible. In Chapter 3 we have a talking serpent, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the tree of life and two angels on the east side of the orchard guarding the tree of life with flames of a whirling swords.

 If this isn't symbology then what is it. Are these things real?  Of course not; just try to find them anywhere around the area where the Garden of Eden existed to prove this to yourself or others. It seems strange to me that you do not see the symbolism in these verses and require that only a literal translation will maintain the Bibles' credibility.   

In Chapter  4 we have the following symbolic verses from the NET:
Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, "I have created a man just as the LORD did!" -Genesis 4:1

Here Eve claims she created a son just like the Lord did through the natural birth process and not as you're claiming from mud or a flesh sample and popping it into existence.  10) Which is it? A literal reading indicates a direct conflict between these verses. To me, Ge 4:1 is literal therefore Ge 2:7 and 2:22 must be symbolic.   
...
But the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground! -Genesis 4:10
So now, you are banished from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. -Genesis 4:11 

These verses are symbolic of the spiritual aspects of mankind and not physical or material. 

In chapter 6 there is the following statement:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men. -Genesis 6:4

This type of spiritual symbolism is prolific throughout the old testament.  11) How can you claim in good conscience that all of these chapters in Genesis must be taken literally and that if we don't, the entire Book of Genesis becomes myth. This is an absurd claim. The original authors clearly intended much of the Book to be symbolic and I have shown you several examples. Therefore, we must conclude that there is a significant amount of symbolism in Genesis. However, One must not exagerate that just because some symbolism is used that the entire book is a myth. This hype and alarmism is counterproductive in our search for truth.    

The real threat to Christian credibility are groups of Christisns trying to convince others that these symbolic things were real material things. Rational people are turned off by this and pursue other religions or become atheists.     

[Stu]-'Is it possible to not have a hydrologic cycle? ...Or do we immediately have to conclude that the physical laws are fixed, but God's word isn't? ... that He is not held hostage by His own physical laws.'

Based on the current laws of physics the only way to avoid a hydrologic cycle is to keep the water so hot or the atmosphere so thin that that the waters above and below cannot be separated. Either the animals would be boiled or suffocate from a lack air pressure. The hydrologic cycle is a result of the earth's temperatures and pressuress as well as water's atomic and molecular characteristics.  Water's characteristics are the result of the electro-magnetic field strength and quantum laws which define the properties of water molecules and attraction between each atom in the water molecule and adjacent molecules. This results in H2O to be a solid, liquid, or vapour based on the temperature and pressure conditions. 

Now if the electric force is different or quantum laws are changed, water would not have the same characteristics and neither would any other atom or molecule. All other life would be drastically modified since its chemical properties would all be altered by this change. This is one reason that God decided to make his laws fixed in this universe because this set of fine tuning constants and laws hold it all together.

God is not held captive to the laws but made a covenant to keep them fixed in His Creation for His benefit. Je 33:25. I see no forced choice between natural law and God's word if you interpret God's Word properly which is symbolically in these passages.   The problem once again in this case is human perception: the proper interpretation of scripture and not entrenching into a narrowminded view based on literal interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3.  

I have already explained that a reader could look at these verses from a spiritual or God's eternal plan perspective. Doing this, in no way, turns these verses into a myth, but expands our understanding of the world from a spiritual perspective and explains His intent. These verses becomes a myth only when viewed from a materialistic literal perspective as some Christians try to convince others that these trees, a talking snake, and the earth crying out were real living material things in this world. The depreciation of the Bible comes from insisting these symbolic spiritual concepts were real living flesh or wood.      

Neither the study of the theory of nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and its validity  nor Christian credibility are properly served by this improper interpretation of scripture.  If you still believe that all these symbolic items that I have listed  must be taken literally, are real material things,  and they are real literal events please try to rationalize each and explain how they can physically and functionally exist. I believe you will see that these physical manifestations are shear folly and require an entirely different set of physical laws which based on His covenant with the current laws, He had no inclination of making. 

The fact that God could initiate and evolve this universe to His exacting specifications through a fixed set of laws only magnifies His power and ability. How Great Thou Art to evolve the earth, animals, then humans from apes using a simple set of fixed physical laws and His built in controls like the Cosmological Constant and quantum hidden variables!!!

[Stu]-'You proudly state that you are a (2) where you reject Paul's understanding of Adam, and make Adam fit within an evolutionary paradigm. But I bet you started out accepting Paul (4); perhaps assuming that evolution could be reconciled with the biblical account. Tell me if I'm wrong.'

I do believe that 2) and 4) can be merged and I previously described how this could be done through evolution.  For some reason you continue to lump all forms of creation by natural methods together with Darwinism and call it simply 'evolution'. This is very misleading and counterproductive in our pursuit of the truth. I have explained my views extensively on this and you should know by now from what I have described that God could have evolved each species including humans to His specifications using natural methods such as mitosis and gametes through divine selection and deterministic natural processes. Not all types of evolution are undirected and contingent such as Biologos which you are attacking (as well as Darwinism).  I would appreciate it if your future posts did not lump me in with all forms of evolutionists and you clarified the choices for the reader instead of attacking all types of slowly evolving creationism. 

[Stu]-'I urge you dear brother to prayerfully reconsider the slope you are on.'
 
My slope is just fine and very solid. My dear brother, you may want to relocate however, since each year the scientific and hermeneutical erosion is making your slope more slippery and misleading to members of our faith. 

Lee

The undiscerning might think this is completely off topic.
Besides it being about my favourite football team, it has relevance to what we (actually not me) have been talking about...
Wonder if you understand the point I am trying to get across.
Note: The chapter headings were added by a happy fan...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 1

FC Twente booked themselves another UEFA Europa League trip to Russia in the round of 16 by recovering from two goals down to draw with FC Rubin Kazan.

Spectacular strikes midway through the first half from Cristian Ansaldi and Christian Noboa cancelled out Twente's 2-0 victory in the opening instalment of the tie last week. However, Twente responded with goals either side of the break from Theo Janssen and Douglas, and now face a tie next month with 2008 UEFA Cup winners FC Zenit St Petersburg, themselves the architect of a fine comeback earlier in the day against BSC Young Boys.





Chapter 2

After a slow start the deadlock was broken when Ansaldi collected a long diagonal ball from César Navas before unleashing a swerving effort from the corner of the box that crept past Nikolay Mihaylov at his near post. Rubin had Twente on the ropes and took full advantage two minutes later, when Noboa cut in between two defenders and unleashed a ferocious curling effort into the top left-hand corner.

Twente almost hit back immediately when Denny Landzaat's cross from the right found Bryan Ruiz unmarked six metres out, but the Costa Rica striker's header rattled the crossbar with Sergei Ryzhikov rooted to the spot. However, it was the home side that went into the break ahead in the tie. In the first minute of added time Janssen strode forward, having picked up the ball in midfield, and from 30 metres hit an unstoppable drive into the bottom right-hand corner.

Rubin's resistance was then broken straight after the break. Douglas, up from the back, lost his marker with an intelligent run from the far post which ended with him heading in Janssen's inswinging corner and restoring Twente's two-goal advantage in the tie.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lucien


PS Lee,
I don't think I agree with/understand your statement that YEs believe that natural laws did not exist before day 7.

Hi Lee,

Now you can clearly see my problem. The Bible says that rain started on Yom 7, but Dr. Ross says it started on Yom 2. Who am I to believe? For me that's an easy call. If I don't accept the biblical account, then I'm making Genesis 6-9 non-historical as well as Genesis 2. If that's the case then the whole message about the corruption of mankind and God's judgment is distorted, if not eliminated altogether. That is a core doctrine of the Christian faith and the person and the work of Jesus Christ.

The laws of physics I was asking for was not a 5th grade level explanation but rather: Is it possible to not have a hydrologic cycle? What physical conditions might make that possible? Or do we immediately have to conclude that the physical laws are fixed, but God's word isn't? Farmers throughout history have prayed for rain. I pray every day that, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" assuming that God is imminently involved in my life and His creation -- that He is not held hostage by His own physical laws. Yes, I believe in miracles -- and they are not just rare events that can't be explained by science.

I am interested in following truth wherever that may lead. I've made the case for Adam being between 6000 and 50,000 years old; favoring the upper range. I've also given my reasons for thinking the Big Bang true, believing eventually that it would reconcile with the 7 yoms of Scripture. But if it gets down to having to depreciate the Bible in order to reconcile it to our current understanding of science, I choose the Bible. To me this is not an argument between two camps (OE vs. YE) -- it is one of epistemology.

On Lucien's scale of 1-4 I am a (4), otherwise the Bible quickly becomes myth and eventually so does my faith. Worse yet, God diminishes in wonder and power over time. You proudly state that you are a (2) where you reject Paul's understanding of Adam, and make Adam fit within an evolutionary paradigm. But I bet you started out accepting Paul (4); perhaps assuming that evolution could be reconciled with the biblical account. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I urge you dear brother to prayerfully reconsider the slope you are on.

Your friend in Christ,

Stu

Hi Stu,

Dr Ross clearly describes the water cycle starting on Day Two in his book The Genesis Question in Chapter 4 in a section titled Day Two: Water Cycle Begins. There are three pages devoted to this topic and clearly describes the water cycle and its impact on the earth, to its life forms, and how the amount of water on earth is maintained.

To quickly summarize the water cycle: 1) the energy of the sun or from the earth causes water to warm and then evaporate from the earth's surface. 2)This vapor ascends through the troposphere and cools as it ascends in elevation (since space is cold and a excellent heat sink). 3)The cold vapor condenses into water droplets or ice crystals and falls back to the surface through the troposphere in the form of snow or rain completing the cycle. The physical laws in place from the beginning would guarantee that the water cycle must start as soon as there is a heat source such as molten earth or sunlight heating the earth's surface and a cold sink such as outer space.

If you believe that the earth is old, rain had to fall for billions of years based on the known physical laws. If you disagree, then you must believe the the current physical laws, started on Day 7 like the YE folks believe. Believing in an old earth view, I thought you disagreed with the YE position and that the laws were fixed on Day 1 except during miracles. 13) Am I getting changing views here on the when the physical laws became valid? Have you changed your position?

I hope you will finish your reply, as this addresses only one issue. There are other issues as well here as to whether Genesis 2:4 to the end of the chapter is allegory or not. There are some serious issues that I have outlined to respond to if you claim that these passages can only be a documentary. Your response does not support your case since rain was present on Day Two per Hugh Ross, and the rest of the secular scientific world.

Lee

We must have developed some kind of kinship since everyone seemed to miss the engagement! That's great -- and is what we started out to do with this forum: To get inside another brother's mind (and sometimes even under his skin) in order to understand and appreciate him; and hopefully grow in the process ourselves.

Please forgive my absence from the forum, and as Bret pointed out from Christian Perspectives. I am slammed with some good things happening. After 3 years of investing time, energy (and our savings account) my new venture is lifting off the ground at last. It is an web 2.0 fundraising system and it is initially being launched to help HIV infected kids in South Africa. If you are interested I'll be glad to include you in the announcement.

I've been waiting to respond so I could do a more thorough job of research and documentation, but time will not permit. So please let me start with a high level response to the first of Lee's excellent questions of Feb 5 -- No Rain Until the Flood.

Yes, that's what I am saying. Actually I'm putting the beginning of the hydrologic cycle on yom 7 (not 6) thinking we have been in yom 7 since Gen 2:1. According to Gen 2:5 God did not send rain upon the earth in the beginning, but supplied an underground irrigation system for the entire earth (I do not see rain on yom 2 according to Hugh Ross' model). Astronomers are finding evidence that global oceans once covered Mars, Venus and the Moon. Scientifically I do not know if having oceans demands a hydrologic cycle. Lee, you're going to have to help me with physics on that one. But that is what I think the clear teaching of Scripture says.

The Garden of Eden was the source of major rivers originating underground to irrigate huge areas of land. Rain was unnecessary.

But in Gen 6, the wickedness of man provoked God to bring judgment upon the earth by flood. He sent rain on the earth for the first time (Gen 7:4, 12). In 8:2 the rain stops and in 8:13 God set His rainbow in the cloud as a covenantal sign. "And is shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud." (8:14) The hydrologic cycle begins.

Since that time rain and wind have been tools of God's judgment. They are not fully understood nor controllable by man -- which is the point.

Lee ...

I'm still here!
As I am sure that our Teammates have not yet thrown in the towel as well!
I'm guessing that Stu has been a little side-tracked with posting a new Topic
to his "Christian Perspectives" Blog ... as he is a couple of months off his usual pace!
Brother Lucien does a lot of International traveling for his Company ... and may not
have time or a decent internet connection to place a post?

Whatever their reasons? ... I (personally) have been holding back ... as to allow Stu
to address your well-posed questions that were specifically directed at him!

I can (and may just have to)... respond to some of your inquiries ... but only Stu can
explain how he can agree with these Truths ... and reconcile them with his OE position!

I too was starting to wonder if we had reached some kind of a stalemate?
But ... I haven't even scratched the surface ... when it comes to exposing the Scientific
flaws and the Biblical inconsistencies that are inherent with Evolution !!!


20 Bret*11