David1701 Posted July 18, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.55 Reputation: 3,522 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2020 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: When the evidence God has made available to us strongly suggest that the earth and universe are billions of years old, and not thousands, then it bears considering if a literal, non-symbolic, reading of Genesis is appropriate. I don't think it is. Whichever way one reads the Genesis account, we can agree on the fundamentals of the first three chapters. 1. God is Creator of all things. 2. Mankind is the apex of God's creation. 3. God specially-imbued humanity with the ability to communicate with Him. 4. This connection was broken when humans chose sin - essentially, chose their own way over God's. 5. The coming of Jesus Christ was prophesied as a means of God bringing humanity back to Him. It is an evolutionary interpretation of the data that leads to the supposition of billions of years. Creationists, with the same data, arrive at very different conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted July 18, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, David1701 said: It is an evolutionary interpretation of the data that leads to the supposition of billions of years. Creationists, with the same data, arrive at very different conclusions. Yes, we have our own interpretations - of nature and of Scripture. I am usually very willing to argue for my interpretation, but I don't think that would really serve the OP well. The cool thing is that we can disagree on some points, but agree on the critical theological points I have previously shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted July 18, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.55 Reputation: 3,522 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Yes, we have our own interpretations - of nature and of Scripture. I am usually very willing to argue for my interpretation, but I don't think that would really serve the OP well. The cool thing is that we can disagree on some points, but agree on the critical theological points I have previously shared. It's not a salvation issue, but it is an important issue. Yes, we can agree on most of the basics of the gospel (although not the origin of death) but evolution is THE main reason why many teenagers, from Christian homes, end up becoming agnostics or atheists. I went the other way. I was an agnostic who believed in evolution (when I was at university, studying biology) and it was irreducible complexity that persuaded me that evolution was impossible, which was one of the stepping stones that led up to me getting saved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted July 18, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2020 (edited) 21 minutes ago, David1701 said: I went the other way. I was an agnostic who believed in evolution (when I was at university, studying biology) and it was irreducible complexity that persuaded me that evolution was impossible, which was one of the stepping stones that led up to me getting saved. I was very much YEC growing up and starting college. It took several years of an undergraduate and PhD degree in Biology for me to see enough evidence to change my mind. I'd love to chat with you regarding irreducible complexity (maybe in the science forum some day), but of course this is a moot point when evolution is viewed as a tool in God's hands. Edited July 18, 2020 by one.opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted July 18, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.55 Reputation: 3,522 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2020 2 hours ago, one.opinion said: I was very much YEC growing up and starting college. It took several years of an undergraduate and PhD degree in Biology for me to see enough evidence to change my mind. I'd love to chat with you regarding irreducible complexity (maybe in the science forum some day), but of course this is a moot point when evolution is viewed as a tool in God's hands. I remember you told me this background, in our previous exchanges about creation vs evolution. If you regard evolution as the tool God used, then you have to discard the order of creation that God told us about, in Genesis one. You also have to discard the reason why death entered the world. I'm completely unwilling to exchange God's account for the shifting suppositions of God-rejecting scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted July 19, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 19, 2020 50 minutes ago, David1701 said: If you regard evolution as the tool God used, then you have to discard the order of creation that God told us about, in Genesis one. You also have to discard the reason why death entered the world. There is sufficient reason to think of the day order as non-literal. There is evening and morning prior to day 4 when the creation of the sun and moon are described. This is not necessarily a play-by-play of creation. I have also shown scripturally why I believe animal death before the fall does not contradict the Bible. I will not theologically play the “my way or the highway” game with anyone, ever - especially on issues of clearly lesser importance. But I will certainly explain to people why I believe my views are not inconsistent with the Bible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted July 19, 2020 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 790 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 878 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 19, 2020 On 7/17/2020 at 10:31 PM, David1701 said: The rule about "yom" is from biblical usage (there is plenty of it). Here is the conclusion of an article about this subject, from Creation.com. "The syntagmatic relationships of yôm in Genesis 1 have been considered and it has been demonstrated that, when used with a number, the pattern is always a normal time period. If ‘night’ is combined with yôm, it always denotes a 24-hour day. If yôm is used with either ‘morning’ or ‘evening’, they too refer to a literal day. When ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ are used together, with yôm, it always signifies a solar day. So the syntagmatic relationships that yôm has illustrate clearly that the meaning is to be; considered a normal time period, consisting of one axial rotation of the earth, called a ‘day’. The various words that could have been substituted for yôm have been considered by the paradigmatics. There was the possibility that an ancient creation might have been communicated. There were three good ways of saying this in Hebrew. The possibility that the events of creation could still be continuing (that is, theistic evolution) was examined. If this was the intended meaning for Genesis 1, then any one of four choices could have been selected. There is the possibility that the time factor was meant to be ambiguous. If this was the focus of the passage, then the Hebrew language had three possible ways of communicating this point. The Hebrew language also had the potential to communicate that all the events on a ‘day’ were done instantly. The paradigmatic relationships of yôm are indeed significant. The point of discussing the semantic approach should be rather obvious. God, through the ‘pen’ of Moses, is being redundant for redundancy’s sake. God is going out of His way to tell us that the ‘days’ of creation were literal solar days. He has used the word yôm, and combined this with a number and the words ‘morning’ and ‘evening’. God has communicated the words of Genesis 1 in a specific manner, so that the interpreter could not miss His point. God could not have communicated the timing of creation more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The meaning of words is important for clear communication. It is by their use and contrast that we can accurately arrive at correct biblical interpretation. We can apply a semantic approach to Scripture and believe that we have understood what God wants us to know. As this approach is applied to Genesis 1, the only meaning which is possible is that the ‘days’ of creation were 24 hour days." https://creation.com/the-days-of-creation-a-semantic-approach Having looked at the article, I think the author(s) are applying certain presuppositions. They compare the use of 'yom' in Genesis 1 with the use of 'yom' in Numbers - but Numbers is a self-declared historical account, and the whole issue over Genesis 1 is that it may be of a different genre altogether. And if you're writing poetry or using metaphorical language, you do have licence to use words differently - as they themselves admit. But they seem to have labelled the whole of the book of Genesis as "history", without admitting the possibility of any nuance. As for God 'not wanting to communicate an ancient creation', surely the opening words "in the beginning" do just that? Just as our concept of the size of the universe has (thanks to modern astronomy) expanded far beyond what Moses would have thought, so has our concept of the age of the universe. But God still created it in the beginning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted July 19, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.55 Reputation: 3,522 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted July 19, 2020 10 hours ago, one.opinion said: There is sufficient reason to think of the day order as non-literal. There is evening and morning prior to day 4 when the creation of the sun and moon are described. This is not necessarily a play-by-play of creation. I have also shown scripturally why I believe animal death before the fall does not contradict the Bible. I will not theologically play the “my way or the highway” game with anyone, ever - especially on issues of clearly lesser importance. But I will certainly explain to people why I believe my views are not inconsistent with the Bible. So, you contradict the day order of creation, you contradict the grammar, which demands that they be literal, 24-hour days, you contradict the reason the Bible gives for death entering the world (it doesn't say "human death"), then you downplay all this unbelief by claiming that these issues are "of clearly lesser importance". This is not Christian behaviour. Genesis is the FOUNDATION for everything else! If you go wrong here (and you certainly do), then you will go wrong in other areas as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted July 19, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 19, 2020 7 minutes ago, David1701 said: Genesis is the FOUNDATION for everything else! If you go wrong here (and you certainly do), then you will go wrong in other areas as well. Go back to the fundamental doctrinal issues I listed. You agreed with every single one. I have previously shown you why my views are consistent with Scripture. I’m not going to give you the fight you apparently want. God bless you, brother. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted July 19, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.55 Reputation: 3,522 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted July 19, 2020 4 hours ago, Deborah_ said: Having looked at the article, I think the author(s) are applying certain presuppositions. They compare the use of 'yom' in Genesis 1 with the use of 'yom' in Numbers - but Numbers is a self-declared historical account, and the whole issue over Genesis 1 is that it may be of a different genre altogether. And if you're writing poetry or using metaphorical language, you do have licence to use words differently - as they themselves admit. But they seem to have labelled the whole of the book of Genesis as "history", without admitting the possibility of any nuance. As for God 'not wanting to communicate an ancient creation', surely the opening words "in the beginning" do just that? Just as our concept of the size of the universe has (thanks to modern astronomy) expanded far beyond what Moses would have thought, so has our concept of the age of the universe. But God still created it in the beginning. Genesis 1 is not written in Hebrew poetic form; it is written in narrative form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts