I have a few questions....

[apothanein kerdos]

Oops, guessed you asked.

OK, here is my first question. Do you believe in the evolution of man or do you believe he was a special creation?

I don't know.

My belief is that man was/is a special creation but still a creature. Though I believe man is much older than 10,000 years (there's too much evidence to prove this), I have a hard time believing he is much older than 40,000. For instance, there still is no direct link of man to anything else. There are similarites, this is for sure, but there still isn't (in my mind) enough evidence to teach that man came forth from an ape-like creature.

If, however, there was enough evidence for this it would not deter me one bit. "Image of God" refers to man's personality, basically, what makes man man. Since this is the case, God still would have had to choose man, breath this life into him, and make him special, thus we would still be a special creation.

So Neb, do you believe that the animals evolved? And do you believe that all people came from two people, Adam and Eve?

This kind of depends on how I end up feeling about the first question.

I do not believe in common ancestory for all animals, not at all. We have the Cambrian explosion which, to me, provides ample evidence that certain biological creatures simply appeared out of no where.

As for Adam and Eve, I do believe that Adam and Eve were literal, even if man did evolve. The reason for this is that there HAD to be a fall...if we remove this fall then everything in Christianity collapses.

When did man fall? At what point did man become accountable for his sin?

The Bible says that by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin. So Who was that one man?

This is simply a tricky question. It is one that I wish I could take a paragraph to answer, but I can't. This ultimately deals with Christian theodicy; how could a good God use evolution (which requires death) to bring the world about prior to the fall? There is, however, a good essay that proposes a theory on how this could occur. It is "Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science" by Dr. William Dembski.

Honestly Island, it's a very long read, confusing at parts (requiring a dictionary and contemplation), it's a hard read, hard concepts to grasp, etc. The reason is that Bill meant this to be read by his seminary peers (if it helps, he's a very conservative southern baptist ) and it hasn't been brought down to an easy to understand level. That is going to be my task over the next few months, is to condense this theory to a level that is easy to understand. Maybe if you read it and come up with questions, this could help me in that task?

Obviously BoL and I are coming from two different views; he is without a doubt a theistic evolutionist (or simliar) where I hold reservations on such aspects of evolution. One thing is for sure, neither of us are 7 day creationists.

[nebula]

IR -

I'll have to get back to you later today; I'm on a time-crunch this morning.

[IslandRose]

Oops, guessed you asked.

OK, here is my first question. Do you believe in the evolution of man or do you believe he was a special creation?

I don't know.

My belief is that man was/is a special creation but still a creature. Though I believe man is much older than 10,000 years (there's too much evidence to prove this), I have a hard time believing he is much older than 40,000. For instance, there still is no direct link of man to anything else. There are similarites, this is for sure, but there still isn't (in my mind) enough evidence to teach that man came forth from an ape-like creature.

If, however, there was enough evidence for this it would not deter me one bit. "Image of God" refers to man's personality, basically, what makes man man. Since this is the case, God still would have had to choose man, breath this life into him, and make him special, thus we would still be a special creation.

So Neb, do you believe that the animals evolved? And do you believe that all people came from two people, Adam and Eve?

This kind of depends on how I end up feeling about the first question.

I do not believe in common ancestory for all animals, not at all. We have the Cambrian explosion which, to me, provides ample evidence that certain biological creatures simply appeared out of no where.

As for Adam and Eve, I do believe that Adam and Eve were literal, even if man did evolve. The reason for this is that there HAD to be a fall...if we remove this fall then everything in Christianity collapses.

When did man fall? At what point did man become accountable for his sin?

The Bible says that by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin. So Who was that one man?

This is simply a tricky question. It is one that I wish I could take a paragraph to answer, but I can't. This ultimately deals with Christian theodicy; how could a good God use evolution (which requires death) to bring the world about prior to the fall? There is, however, a good essay that proposes a theory on how this could occur. It is "Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science" by Dr. William Dembski.

Honestly Island, it's a very long read, confusing at parts (requiring a dictionary and contemplation), it's a hard read, hard concepts to grasp, etc. The reason is that Bill meant this to be read by his seminary peers (if it helps, he's a very conservative southern baptist ) and it hasn't been brought down to an easy to understand level. That is going to be my task over the next few months, is to condense this theory to a level that is easy to understand. Maybe if you read it and come up with questions, this could help me in that task?

Obviously BoL and I are coming from two different views; he is without a doubt a theistic evolutionist (or simliar) where I hold reservations on such aspects of evolution. One thing is for sure, neither of us are 7 day creationists.

I believe you've touched on most of the things that bother me about the Old Earth and especially the theistic evolution stands.

So much of what I believe rests on the understanding that Adam was real. That man was a special creation. The New Testement uses Adam as an example several times, so if there was no Adam, what does that do to our theology?

Then there is, as you mentioned, the problem of death. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: If the Earth is old and man somehow evolved....lived and died.... if there was death before Adam sinned, then what was teh consequence of sin. I understand spiritual death...but all who died before that...all those evolving men... where are they? At what point did they have a soul, a spirit?

For those who believe in human evolution...When did man fall? At what point did man become accountable for his sin?

I don't know. It doesn't really matter to me. If I knew the first sinner was called "ug" and lived 250,345 years ago, it wouldn't much change the basis of my religion, or particularly interest me.

I guess because you basically look at it all from science, as long as it lines up with what you understand of science you can accept it. I come at it from the stand point of one who has build her life on scripture. And if it doesn't line up with scripture, I don't get it. I'm truly not bashing any one. I really am trying to understand your point of view.

I belive in faith, but I think it has to be faith according to knowledge. Not a blind faith that just accepts everything without at least exploring the reasons for our understanding. I know that there are some things we will never understand, but that should not be an excuse for not at least seeking knowledge.

Joel, I have pulled up the paper you linked to and will sit down and begin to read it this afternoon. Perhaps it will answer some of my questions...

[Christian]

I belive in faith, but I think it has to be faith according to knowledge. Not a blind faith that just accepts everything without at least exploring the reasons for our understanding. I know that there are some things we will never understand, but that should not be an excuse for not at least seeking knowledge.

"To assume that the scientific theories of today are the end of all true knowledge is foolishness. Conversely, to shun and deny sound scientific evidence under the banner of "Defending the Faith" against

[apothanein kerdos]

I believe you've touched on most of the things that bother me about the Old Earth and especially the theistic evolution stands.

So much of what I believe rests on the understanding that Adam was real. That man was a special creation. The New Testement uses Adam as an example several times, so if there was no Adam, what does that do to our theology?

Then there is, as you mentioned, the problem of death. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: If the Earth is old and man somehow evolved....lived and died.... if there was death before Adam sinned, then what was teh consequence of sin. I understand spiritual death...but all who died before that...all those evolving men... where are they? At what point did they have a soul, a spirit?

They bother me too and I am old earth. I do not try to hide the fact that it is hard to justify an old earth stance biblically. It requires a new reading (one I believe is justified) and a deeper interpretation...and it can come across as trying to read into the text or using improper interpretation methods.

Either way we go on the creation story, literal or not, we run into interpretation problems and scientific problems.

Regardless, you are correct in that there does have to be a fall of man at some point in history. If there is not, then the entire Bible is uselss....the purpose of Christ becomes useless, and it changes the nature of God completely. Now, I believe the effects of the fall took place prior to the fall and post-fall (after all, if this were not the case, why the Garden....this is brought up in that paper). Then again, this is a new theory that has no hold in the tradition of the church....so it makes my case difficult.

I belive in faith, but I think it has to be faith according to knowledge. Not a blind faith that just accepts everything without at least exploring the reasons for our understanding. I know that there are some things we will never understand, but that should not be an excuse for not at least seeking knowledge.

Now that is something you and I agree on 100%

[Bread_of_Life]

I guess because you basically look at it all from science, as long as it lines up with what you understand of science you can accept it. I come at it from the stand point of one who has build her life on scripture. And if it doesn't line up with scripture, I don't get it. I'm truly not bashing any one. I really am trying to understand your point of view.

I look at it from a viewpoint of evidence, my dear girl. I proportion my belief to the evidence.

Faith is important in my life, don't get me wrong, but it oughtn't replace or usurp what the evidence tells us. And the evidence overwhelmingly tells us that the earth is a very old place indeed, and that all life is related, including ourselves. This I will believe, and my faith is just going to have to fit around it.

[IslandRose]

I guess because you basically look at it all from science, as long as it lines up with what you understand of science you can accept it. I come at it from the stand point of one who has build her life on scripture. And if it doesn't line up with scripture, I don't get it. I'm truly not bashing any one. I really am trying to understand your point of view.

I look at it from a viewpoint of evidence, my dear girl. I proportion my belief to the evidence.

Faith is important in my life, don't get me wrong, but it oughtn't replace or usurp what the evidence tells us. And the evidence overwhelmingly tells us that the earth is a very old place indeed, and that all life is related, including ourselves. This I will believe, and my faith is just going to have to fit around it.

But, Nik, don't you think that that attitude is as bad as those who say, I believe thus and such... (some Christian world belief)...and my science is just going to have to fit around it? Should you not be searching as diligently for the truth of scriptures as you would like us to delve deeper into the truths of science?

As Christians, especially, should not our lives be dedicated to searching for truth...all truth?

[IslandRose]

Joel, I am reading that paper, very interesting reading. It will take me a while to get through it... but I am a fast reader...with above average comprehension... So my questions will be coming ..mmmm...tomorrow probably.

[apothanein kerdos]

Joel, I am reading that paper, very interesting reading. It will take me a while to get through it... but I am a fast reader...with above average comprehension... So my questions will be coming ..mmmm...tomorrow probably.

Better than I did....took me about four days.

[nebula]

OK - I'm back!

Any such contradictions only arise within the paradigm of our understanding, be it scientific or scriptural." C.G.M.

Great quote!

***

OK, IR, before you read the rest, I want you to just contemplate this for a little while.

Genesis 1 says "the first day," "the second day," etc. - and the traditional view is to interpret this as physical 24-hour time periods - even thought the sun to mark the evenings and morning was missing for the first three days.

Later when it says "on the day you eat of hte fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you will surely die" - the traditional view is to either interpret "day" as something other than the 24-hour time period (death will enter you, but you won't die that "day") or interpret "death" as the spiritual death.

Do you see the apparent inconcistency?

Why is "day" interpreted as a literal, physical 24-hour time period in Gen. 1, but "the day you eat of it you shall surely die" is not interpreted as literally?

***

If the answer is something along the lines of, "Well, we have to interpret the verse in terms of what actually happened" - then I propose room is open to interpret Gen. 1 differently in light of what may have also happened differently than what is seemingly apparent?

Even if you disagree, can you see how it can fit?

***

So, let's look at what it means that:"The day you eat of it you shall surely die."

What if that is a spiritual death?

Spiritual death (death of the spirit) could never have entered the world before a living being had a spirit in the image of God, could it?

***

In the same vein, I often wonder if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a physical tree - I mean, how can eating a piece of fruit cause your physical eyes to see differently? Do we believe that God created a "magic" fruit?

But we know in other passages of scripture that "fruit" does not always mean the mature ovary of a tree containing its seeds (that is what a physical fruit is!).

In reading Gen. 3, it can also be seen that for Eve to believe the lies of the serpant mean that she doubted God's word, His goodness, and His authority. Pride, arrogance, and vanity entered her heart before she ate of the fruit.

So could it be that the account is prophetically symbolic of how sin and death entered the world?

Perhaps.

At least, it makes sense to me.

I could be wrong, but for now, understanding it this way helps me to reconcile the seeming contradiction between "faith and science" as it's called, and that, in my heart and mind, without compromising either.

For how can it be incorrect to interpret a prophetic description of events (and the prophets did describe past events this way - i.e. Ezekiel 16 ) non-literally in the "literal sense"?