Creation???

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

P.S. Why don't you read Gen. 1 for what God has to say about our relationship with Him and His plan of redemption. It's in there if you know what to look for.

When I teach my 2 year old about the boy who cried wolf, I intend for her to walk away with the understanding that she is not to cry help without sufficient cause, I do not intend for her to debate her friends about the species of wolf, whether it was figurative or literal, or the colour of it's eyes.

Sure, but did the authour of the boy who cried wolf ever receive an authoritative commandment that 'Every word of 'Cried wolf' is flawless', or the boy shall not live on sheep alone but on every word that proceeds from 'cried wolf', or that 'cried wolf' is living and active, sharper than any shepherd’s crook and capable of discerning even the motives of little boys?

Kidding aside though, without knowing your beliefs, I could just as readily have understood this post to be written by an atheist/eastern mystic/new age pagan/ agnostic/etc/ who was brushing scripture in its totallity off as a morality tale - and why not?

If you're taking this stance here, what justifies the inconsistency in taking the rest of the Bible differently?

Paul spoke in the rhetoric of Hellenistic diatribe - such was never expected in that culture to be communicating a one-to-one comparison of real events to the truth they were supposed to communicate. Secular scholars see the NT as written in the same 'historical' format as other Hellenistic influenced works in the Ancient Near East like Alexander's conquests, which involved incidents of prophetic oracles, talking snakes and crows, etc.

A long time ago I remember my Ancient Greek History professor mentioning that the NT was the natural bi-product of the union of Hebrew theology and Greek philosophy, and let me tell you, that case is pretty consistent and compelling. I guarantee that using that precedent, from the nature of contemporary literature it would be easier for me to show why the NT should be taken as metaphoric and widely embellished than it would for you to show that it shouldn’t. The reason we don’t is because God told us things in advance so we’d know they were from Him, and those things came to pass just as decreed so we can see the reliability of the Creator and the absolute, uncompromising truth of His word as stated: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).

The point being, the style of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is not unique to poetic, hyperbolic, or symbolic representations of truth any more so than the rest of the text, in which we invest total, unwavering faith. The more you study ancient history, the less privilege you have to pretend that the NT was written in a genre that was culturally accepted as a direct one-to-one historical narrative style, since that sure ain't what everyone else was doing, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander (if a barn-yard metaphor won't convince you, then nothing will...) and if you open up the hermeneutic door to say that the point of Genesis 1 was not to communicate something that happened but the symbolism of what happened then you've no firmer footing to resist the JW or Mormon who rejects the divinity of Christ than your personal take on scripture.

Wow

My point was that we should read it to understand the message He has given us in it, and not focus on the issues that He didn't make a focus. It's clear that Genesis refers to the Lords Creative work, but His focus on is man's relationship with God and sin, and revealing (albeit dimly) His plan for redemption.

OK,

Look Neb and Candice, obviously I'm having an off day and not coming across very well, so for that please accept my apologies.

I'm a cognitive type and that makes me thick as a brick when it comes to how I come across sometimes, so from the reactions here I've obviously failed in my intentions and have communicated offensively - I hope you'll both accept my apologies and please understand that it was not my intention to offend, and I'm not upset or anything I'm just clearly miscommunicating and it's coming out negatively.

All I'm trying to say is that the Lords creative and redemptive work was clearly displayed on the cross - we all agree on that, and we also all agree on the importance of that being a historical reality. My point is, since we know that historical events can have profound redeemptive implications on which to focus, it just doesn't add up to me to suggest that just because God was communicating something of creative and redeemptive significance that we therefore are at liberty to question if He has accurately communicating how it actually happened - what would better communicate the truth and by extention the implications of that truth, than the accurate protrayal of the events in reality? If we set a standard of accepting what we suppose is the point, over what the text says actually occured, I think we could get into trouble and I really don't see how we are not making an exception to a rule we hold to in other areas.

If I'm right and this is making an exception, I don't see why those who make this exception in areas that are critical would see our reasoning for doing so over here, but criticising them for doing so over there.

I'm not aching to have the discussion myself, but I'm obligated to make ready an answer and the main reason I post anything is because I was once searching for answers and have worked very hard to come up with ones that have withstood my scrutiny, so I'm providing them to the best of my ability in hopes that some reader will find something I say helpful in their charge to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).

Now, if I've failed in the 'gentleness and respect' category here, again I'm sorry. I was going for much more light-hearted than I apparently came across, but again since I'm here to try to offer whatever I can to those who're looking for answers, I'm primarily concerned with providing defenses for what I consider the most accurate reading of the Bible, and it felt to me like that was getting poked at a bit.

I don't want any YEC's to feel embarassed for their view, even if it's just because they have the faith like a child and accept the Bible according to how they understand that.

Sorry to be hard line about it, but it really just didn't seem that the YEC position was being respected there and I really thought we could just get a couple answers out there and that would be it... it wasn't my purpose to start a stink.

[~candice~]

I'm not offended in the slightest. I tend to be quite academic and emotionless talking about creation. You are fine

[nebula]

I'm a former Christian-hating naturalist, turned Christian evolutionist, turned YEC.

I had huge struggles coming to terms with Christianity first, and young earth creationism second, but simply could not support either assertion in light of a systematic scrutiny of God's word, even though I hotly and hostily opposed both Christianity and young earth creationism respectively.

So ya, I've questioned and what I found when I dug for the truth is that despite all of my preconceptions and struggles to affirm the contrary "Thy word is Truth" (John 17:17) and that all the ways that "seemth right to a man, the end therein is death" (Proverbs 14:12).

My story is opposite. I grew up in church, and decided to follow Jesus early on. Trying to make sense out of Creation wasn't a big issue with me for a long time, but I've had reasons to question a lot of "traditional" teaching.

The mistake I see you making in speaking with me is that you take my words to mean I am questioning God or something? Actually, I've gained new appreciations and greater marvels.

I was serious about the Genesis 1 account outlining God's plan of redemption.

In Scripture, "the deep" is symbolic of the Gentiles, the nations separate from God. "The Land" (eretz) is symbolic of the people of God.

So we see that God begins His story with the people of God being in a sorry shape, and darkness being over the people of the world, and the Spirit of God is hovering over them all. Then God calls forth light, and He separates the light from the darkness. Then He separates the waters towards that which is above and that which is below. Then He separates His people from the people of the world and calls forth fruitfulness out of them. Etc.

A very interesting study was done on this a few years ago. Genesis 1 became so much more alive to me through this!

And this is why I keep questioning the traditional interpretation because I believe it misses the point God was making. If we worry more about Earth's history then God's history (with regards to His relationship with man), then we are missing out.

Let's not pretend that you asked that question about how YEC's could reconcile the Bible to reality and wrote off my response as head games without any real consideration as though it was for my edification.

I was wanting to know. I got my answer - which is an argument I've gotten into before with the result of everyone running in circles. I discovered the answer was given by a bulldog. Right or wrong, I am not good at wrestling with bulldogs. I backed out for both reasons.

I don't consider you ignorant, just coming from an intellectual perspective and plane I am not comfortable with.

And it is bothering me that you are angry that I'm trying to back out.

If that's what you wanted to say, then it seems to me that I would best understand your purpose if you'd expressed it as such, but you didn't.

I told you I'm not a good debater. I rambled my thoughts, and didn't lay them out very well. Plus I didn't take the time to separate my emotional reaction out of the equation...but that would have taken too long (Feminine default, sorry.)

[~candice~]

OK let me clarify something though. I'm not saying YEC is wrong, and I'm not suggesting that we abandon YEC in favour of a metaphorical allegorical interpretation of Genesis. I'm saying that it is BOTH historical and spiritual in it's content and we shouldn't abandon either. However, it's really not scientific in nature, beyond saying that God is the cause. So I think we should focus on the emphasis that God has given us, which is far far more spiritual than it is scientific, and not try and make a scientific emphasis out of something that is largely historical / spiritual (far far more spiritual though). HTH.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I don't consider you ignorant, just coming from an intellectual perspective and plane I am not comfortable with.

And it is bothering me that you are angry that I'm trying to back out.

OK Neb, I gotta run for now, so I don't have time to provide you a proper response just now, but I assure you I'm not angry, not at all.

We can just back right out if you're more comfortable with that.

Love you in Christ sister, and God bless you!

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I discovered the answer was given by a bulldog.

... one last thing though... I'm a sheepdog.

You must have gotten me confused with winsomebulldog!

[~candice~]

... one last thing though... I'm a sheepdog.

You must have gotten me confused with winsomebulldog!

[nebula]

I think you're misinterpreting my purpose here. I was getting a pushy vibe from your response there and I'm just trying to show that the we're not YEC because we just haven't looked into it yet.

Look Neb, I'm not trying to cause contention here, but I just don't think this was all in the best spirit. I though you were asking a question and I was providing a response, but it seemed to me that you just wanted to get a 'so there' in.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looked like.

Sorry, I think we are talking past each other.

My emotional outburst was over feeling overwhelmed by the way you responded. I don't know how to explain how philosophical you come across, and that is something that always leaves me cross-eyed, so to speak. I didn't mean to come across as attacking. I was trying to explain why I couldn't handle rumbling in debate with you.

Then may I suggest that it may be unwise to ask a question to which you don't what to hear the response.

It wasn't the what, it was the how, as I've been trying to explain.

Your argument seems to be that we need to see the meaning behind the events not focus on the events themselves, and therefore it seems to be implied that therefore the events need not have occured as recorded.

What I'm saying is that Jesus' acutal resurrection was reality, even though the deeper meaning is what is reallly important. Just because an event has a very profound meaning doesn't do anything to suggest that therefore the event itself didn't need to occur, as long as the meaning was communicated. If Christ did not really die we are to be pitied above all people.

We have no grounds to dismiss events in the Bible as reality, just because they have profound meaning. That would relegate the Bible to the mythology of all the false religions of the world.

Please don't jump this gun. Genesis 1 is written different than Genesis 2. The link I provided shows how Gen. 1 has more to it than step 1, step 2, step 3. There's a layout. And it matches Hebrew poetry in it's presentation ("parallelism").

The account of Jesus on Earth was told by people who were witnesses to the event. Genesis 1 had no human witness to draw from. Thus it is strictly God's revelation, and when God reveals that which has never been seen, it very rarely is the way humans would present it. I see Genesis 1 (God's revealing that which is past) as being no less prophetic than God's revealing of what is to come.

If you don't take Genesis 1-11 as historical, why stop there? All ancient documents were embellished and propagandized.

Only Genesis 1 - for which I explained above.

OK, how should I have made my case?

By not accusing me of trying to destroy faith in Jesus would be nice.

I'm not sure how you've tried to spin it this way, but I'm arguing for the straight forward reading of the text. Believing that it was written to mean what it says and say what it means.

You're introducing the idea of trying to dig out what it means, which is weaving something that goes above the straight-forward way of approaching the text.

I tried to answer straight-forwardly by simply quoting the verse and pointing out what it says and stating that therefore I believe that's what happened and I didn't see a conflict, to which you pushed back with a call to digging a bit deeper and so I consented and followed your lead.

No....my thought process is analytical; your thought process comes across as more philosophical. It's a plane I can't handle very well.

[nebula]

OK Neb, I gotta run for now, so I don't have time to provide you a proper response just now, but I assure you I'm not angry, not at all.

We can just back right out if you're more comfortable with that.

Love you in Christ sister, and God bless you!

OK - it's hard to communicate on-line sometimes (no body language).

[Dragoon]

I found two cents...

I'm fine with the concept of evolution as a means for species change, and for 'new' species to develop. I think its clear that neither it, nor abiogenesis are anywhere near explaining how life 'began' though.

I also believe in the literal truth of the Bible.