| Greene's Creationism Truth Filter |
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/29862
From: Steve Heiden Dear Ray, You are absolutely correct in perceiving that "death is necessary to establish a fossil record." What do the trilobite fossils embedded in the geological strata of an ancient ocean indicate to you? What do the earth impact craters indicate to you? There is the frozen flesh of the Beresovka mammoth that fell from a high embankment and broke its bones and died where it landed from its fall. What does this frozen flesh indicate to you? There is a supernova, designated SN1987A, that blew up about 168,000 years ago in the galaxy named the Large Magellanic Cloud. What does the existence of this supernova in the distant past indicate to you? What do you believe about such things as the geological strata, the fossil record, frozen mammoth flesh, and supernovae? These are true events that have occurred in the real world in the distant past. How do these fit into your logic? So my answer to your question "At what point did violence and decay and disease enter into the world?" is: As seen by objective examination of the world we live in, a very, very long time ago.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Ray West wrote: > Steve... > > Let me ask how this fits into your logic... At what point did > violence and decay and disease enter into the world? It seems > that one or all of these are necessary for death, and death is > necessary to establish a fossil record, and if that fossil record > precedes the garden then there was violence (accidental or > purposeful) and/or decay and/or disease in existence before the > fall which makes the description of the earth in the garden a > little disingenuous. Unless of course you would say that life in > the garden was life in the garden and life outside the garden was > different, which, again, is not the picture I get of God's 'good' > creation before the ruinous actions of man. > > Ray
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/29981
From: Steve Heiden Dear Ray, We both have a God who is always right. God is not the author of error. No one, on any side of this discussion, is questioning God. However, I know that we do not always understand what He says to us. Our fallible human understanding of God's Word and God's World is quite often mistaken and deficient. What we are questioning is each other's fallible human understanding. You are a fallible human being, just as I certainly am. I don't think that you believe that human interpretation of the Bible is infallible. Therefore, I know that you must accept the possiblity that the earth and the universe really are quite old, based on the information that has been acquired through objective examination of the earth and the universe, and the corresponding possibility that it is the young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible that is mistaken. Within the last few days, Robert D. did also "cite as proof of science's fallibility the flat earth theory" and a number of us pointed out the distinct error of this example. Futhermore, your other examples are not clear to me as to what point you are trying to make with them. Science has determined why washing prior to medical procedures is a good idea, and this determination is factual. Science also did settle the atomic theory of matter, and then went beyond that in determining yet finer details regarding the structure of the atom itself. Some of these discoveries regarding the nature of subatomic processes are in fact used in the design of digital circuits. I would cite all of these examples you have mentioned as showing distinct successes of the process of scientific examination of the world in acquiring factual and useful information about the world. We have the chemical table of the elements. While this 'table' has today become very detailed and complicated in its compendium of chemical and physical information about the elements, this is an accumulation of detail to what was learned quite some time ago. We have not only learned about DNA (and RNA) in heredity processes, we have also gone beyond this to develop some 'first drafts' of a genome map for human beings. This genome map is now being gone over and having corrections made and further details filled in, and this is only a springboard for further scientific investigation regarding the interactions of genetic processes in how genes are 'expressed' in the 'macrostructure' of the human body. You will get no argument from me that scientists are fallible and the scientific process is fallible. I agree with you completely. If you're interested, you might take a look at my July 5th post entitled "Ancient world is sound doctrine, because it's true" at
But that is neither here nor there in this discussion. Everyone accepts the fact, discovered through science, that the earth orbits the sun, and not the other way around. This a factual aspect, a true characteristic, of the world we live in. No one disputes the fact that we can and do acquire factual and useful information about the world through scientific investigation. It just so happens that it is an equally factual, objectively determinable characteristic of the world, that the earth and the universe have existed thousands of times longer than just 6,000 years. Almost no one here who has disputed this fact has even attempted to explain what they think is wrong with the relevant scientific information. (Perhaps they need to spend some time learning about it first, before they choose to dispute it.) If a person believes that this discovery about a factual characteristic of the world (its antiquity) is all a big mistake, then he needs to present specific details that substantiate this claim. (The Institute for Creation Research, just as an example, has been trying to do just this for the last 40 years. They have failed completely. Indeed, the ICR's failure provides an example that serves to demonstrate in a pragmatic manner that the idea of the earth's antiquity is factually demonstrated by the evidence, just as those who maintain that the earth is old have stated all along.) If he believes that the relevant information regarding the age of the earth is mistaken (indeed, that the entire body of objective evidence is completely erroneous), then it should be easy for him to present his case for demonstrating the mistakes that he alleges exist in the information that shows antiquity. He must explain the mistakes in the evidence, and he must explain why he believes that scientists (and all others who have learned of the factual information and accepted it) are wrong in the areas of the fields of geology, astronomy, and physics that deal with the information regarding the age of the earth and the universe. He must actually present the specific details that demonstrate his claim that the scientific information is mistaken. When a person claims that "There is a possibility that science is mistaken," he must then proceed to show the mistakes that he thinks exist. Otherwise, his claim is empty, and the reason it is empty is because of the fact that science also succeeds in learning true aspects of the world. Scientists certainly make mistakes, and they also certainly make progress, in learning about the world. The earth really does orbit the sun; molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles like electrons and neutrinos exist; mammoths roamed the earth and lived and died tens of thousands of years ago, and we have the frozen flesh to prove it; supernovae have exploded hundreds of thousands, and millions, of years in the past; and the earth really has been around thousands of times longer than 6,000 years. In answer to your question regarding my general perspective, I tend to agree with what has come to be called the "framework" interpretation. If you're interested in looking at more information about that particular approach, you might consider
I must point out that my general perspective is certainly not the only perspective that seeks to properly understand the biblical text in light of the antiquity of the world. For example, Alexander Campbell accepted that the earth is old, but he did not argue for a 'framework' interpretation. I have mentioned others in the church of Christ who have accepted the antiquity of the earth, such as William H. Davis, J. D. Thomas, Batsell Barrett Baxter, Jack Wood Sears, John Clayton, and Hill Roberts, and I don't believe any of them have argued for a 'framework' type of interpretation. These men have discussed other perspectives toward the proper interpretation of the biblical text relevant to creation. The other thing I want to point out is that I come to this issue from the background (unlike Scott Tucker, apparently) of having been raised by Christian parents and having believed young earth creationism myself, only to later become absolutely convinced, after years of studying this issue, that the evidence for an old earth is rock solid. Upon realizing in my study how irrefutable the evidence really was, I found myself compelled to accept that the antiquity of the earth is a factual characteristic of the world, because my own personal integrity demanded it. In other words, there came a point in my studying of the issue beyond which I could not honestly say to myself and other people "I respect the truth, and I respect the process of seeking truth" unless I was willing to change my own beliefs regarding this issue, based on the definitive objective information that showed me that my belief (that the earth did not exist more several thousand years) was wrong. Thank you for your discussion.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Ray West wrote: > Steve, > > I don't know WHAT I 'believe' about these things. To presume that > I might have an answer for that is to presume that I am advancing > an agenda rather than simple asking questions in search of the > truth. > > What those things INDICATE to me is that, if science knows what > they are talking about, the universe has been here for a very > long time. But then I must look at the history of science and > conclude that they do NOT always know what they are talking > about, do not have the knowledge or evidence that they need about > such a time to make the conclusive statements they do, and could > not NECESSARILLY be relied upon to do so correctly if they did. I > site as proof of science's fallibility the flat earth theory, the > inability to surmise why washing prior to medical procedures > might be a good idea, and that whole debacle about how the atom > was the smallest thing around until they broke it open and stuff > started flying out all over the place (among others). > > Compared to that, I have God who is always right, and as long as > I can understand what he is saying to me I can know the truth. So > I must reconcile the two to understand what that truth is with an > inherent prejudice to what God says because he has proven himself > reliable. > > If, as you seem to submit (and please correct me if I am wrong) > the age of the earth can be, more or less, reconciled with the > biblical account of creation by the assumption that the 'days' of > Genesis were not 24 hour periods, then it seems to me that what > that leaves us with is a garden somewhere around 6000 years ago, > but eons of time prior to that during which all kinds of things > happened that are reflected in this fossil record. > > Before I go on, let me understand if that is a correct > understanding of your position. Can you confirm?? > > Ray
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/30035
From: Steve Heiden Dear Ray, Again, thank you for your discussion. Note that I have somewhat rearranged the order of some items here. --- In BereanSpirit, Ray West wrote: > The biblical account and science's observation must gel in some > fashion. This is a critical point of agreement that we have. > I would like it is you could confirm or correct my question. I > will offer it as the alternatives I perceive and see if that > helps. > > Do you reason that: > > A. These many years culminated in a garden with Adam and Eve in > it 6000 years ago? > > or B. That some substantial portion of these many years occurred > SINCE the creation of Adam and Eve and their placement in the > Garden. > > or C. The the story of Adam and Eve is itself allegorical and not > a static point in time. I tend to believe a form of (B), though I wouldn't use the word "substantial." First of all, I do not believe that the Bible is a science book, nor do I believe that God is trying to teach us about paleoanthropology in the Bible. I believe that Adam and Eve could have existed tens of thousands of years ago (or even longer). I can't say that I know clearly how the biblical account and the fossil record "gel" in this respect. I do not think that the genealogies are intended to be used as chronologies, as I have mentioned in an earlier post. I have read of viewpoints that following some form of (C), but I have not yet read what I consider to be convincing expositions of this type of view. As you can perhaps tell, I'm open-minded on this score. One thing about the general (C) idea that I believe to be correct is that there are elements of Genesis 2 and 3 that contain elements of what is clearly religious symbology from the culture of the ancient Israelites, and this is why I remain open to the possibility of that view. However, take a look at this article by Davis A. Young, which is on the internet:
> I used those examples to very simply confirm (and not in a way > that I thought you might disagree with) that at any given point > in time, science could be wrong about their observations. > Yesterday we knew the earth was flat, today we know that it is > round (egg shaped whatever...) what will we know tomorrow??? > Surely you must accept the possibility that science is wrong > about this too. As a matter of fact, no, I don't. What I was trying to point out, using these same examples along with some additional ones, is that there are in fact areas at which a certain point is reached where we achieve what I shall call 'such a high degree of certainty' regarding something we have learned about the world that we call it factual. Yesterday, we did not "know" the earth was flat. It was known by the educated by the time of the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes that the earth was shaped like a ball, and Eratosthenes performed a particular ingenious analysis by which he actually measured the size of the earth, and he was correct within the margins of his measurement error. He did this over two thousand years ago. I do not accept the possibility that science is wrong about this. The earth is shaped like a ball. The earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. We can and do learn information about the world with such a high degree of certainty that we call it factual, and it is these facts that everything else we believe and model and conjecture must correspond to. I will agree with you so far as saying that with what I have called 'degree of certainty' there is a matter of degree. In other words, along with there being levels of certainty there are also levels of uncertainty. And in science there are ideas, models, methods, and processes that are all across this spectrum of certainty and uncertainty. None of this implies that nothing can exist at the 'certain' end of the spectrum. We only know from practical experience that achieving certainty can often take a great deal of work, determination, and ingenuity. We also know from practical experience that we can be mistaken in thinking that something is certain when in fact it is not. But we also know from practical experience that there are things that we do know with certainty about the world, and that can then be added to our 'framework' of factual information about the world. I will not agree with the idea that science is or can be wrong about everything. I will not agree that science is or can be wrong about the earth not being flat. I will not agree that science is or can be wrong about the solar system being heliocentric. The relevant information that has been acquired about such topics is simply far too extensive and far too consistently definitive for anything different to be the case. Truth cannot contradict truth, and while our knowledge about the world is not infinitely extensive (in other words, we aren't omniscient), there are models of the world that are truly impossible to exist and be consistent with what the factual information that we have already acquired about the world. The earth cannot be shaped like an cube. It cannot be shaped like a turtle. The earth cannot be flat. The earth cannot be shaped like a bowl or a frisbee. The earth absolutely does not orbit any star of any galaxy in the Virgo cluster of galaxies. The earth does not orbit the supernova designated SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy. Heredity is not determined by the will of a sun god, or a moon god. I belabor this point, because I'm trying to make it crystal clear. >> Steve: But that is neither here nor there in this discussion. > > Ray: For my purpose in bringing it up, it was both here AND > there... I'm claiming that it is not relevant in the context of this discussion. I make this claim based on the fact that the information that shows that the earth and the universe are ancient is irrefutable and definitive. We aren't talking about ideas that have the status merely of conjecture. When discussing this issue we are talking about a factual characteristic of the world that is seen by direct observation. This is why the general philosophical point about the fallibility of science "is neither here nor there in this discussion." Now, I have just stated that "we are talking about a factual characteristic of the world that is seen by direct observation," which is something that I believe you disagree with. So let me address that by again quoting from the previous round: >> Steve: It just so happens that it is an equally factual, >> objectively determinable characteristic of the world, that the >> earth and the universe have existed thousands of times longer >> than just 6,000 years. Almost no one here who has disputed this >> fact has even attempted to explain what they think is wrong with >> the relevant scientific information. [snip] > Ray: Lots in this paragraph. Your analogy is flawed. You cannot > state an observable fact and draw from it the conclusion that an > unobservable fact is also true. Now, I understand that you are > saying that 'characteristics' are observable, but that simply is > not that same thing, if we are to have an honest discussion. You > (meaning no one) cannot observe the occurrences that are to have > happened so long ago. You cannot observe my eating breakfast > yesterday. It was not videotaped, it is over, done, gone. That is > not to say that it did not happen. And that is not to say that > the conclusions drawn in you paragraph above are not also > correct, only that one does not necessarily flow from the other. This is where the young earth creationist argument (yes, it is a young earth creationist argument) against antiquity breaks down, because in the field of astronomy the universe's past is in fact directly observable. I (and others) have already mentioned the example of the supernova named SN1987A. That is just one example of astronomers having directly observed events that have taken place in the distant past, events that took place hundreds of thousands, millions, and even billions of years ago. The explosion of SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago, and this is a directly observed event. My discussion is indeed an honest one, because the antiquity of the universe is directly observable. In addition to this, there are certain features on the earth for which it is physically impossible for them to have occurred within the short time span of young earth creationism. Currently there are over 160 impact craters that have been discovered. Some of these impact craters are quite large, such as the crater in the ocean floor off the coast of the Yucatan peninsula and the Vredefort crater in South Africa. If all of these impacts had occurred within a time frame of less than 6,000 years (rather than intermittently over hundreds of millions of years as discovered through geological investigation) then this planet Earth would currently be uninhabitable. The combined impact energy represented by all of these craters is far greater than thousands of times the world's entire nuclear arsenal. I can state that the antiquity of the earth is a "factual, objectively determinable characteristic of the world" because, by the accumulation of relevant information about our planet through scientific examination, we know that it is impossible for these events to have occurred within only several thousand years. You wrote: > I have made no such statement about science being mistaken in > this conversation, and as such have no obligation to substantiate > such a statement. Please note that I wrote that long paragraph as a general statement, knowing that you yourself were not necessarily arguing for any particular scientific error against the conclusion of antiquity. I know that while I'm responding to your post, I'm also carrying out my discussion in a 'public forum.'
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/30368
From: Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, Ray West wrote: [Subject: Re: When is Apologetics Evangelism?] > I am trying to find a basis on which to have our discussion... > something that we can agree on or at least get in the ballpark > on. That is difficult to do when your answer to my question is > basically "some combination of all three" :-) Dear Ray, Here is the outline you gave:
Earlier I began my long paragraph of response with "I tend to believe a form of (B), though I wouldn't use the word 'substantial.'" I intended the rest of my paragraph to clarify that first, short sentence. I purposely used the phrase "tend to believe," because as I explained, "I can't say that I know clearly how the biblical account and the fossil record 'gel' in this respect" and "I'm open-minded on this score." Even while I consider Adam and Eve as historical figures, I agree with some basic elements of (C), which is why I commented further that "One thing about the general (C) idea that I believe to be correct is that there are elements of Genesis 2 and 3 that contain elements of what is clearly religious symbology from the culture of the ancient Israelites, and this is why I remain open to the possibility of that view." Finally, using Davis A. Young's article "The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited" as a reference (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/CSR5-95Young.html), I stated that while I consider Adam and Eve to be referenced as historical figures in Genesis, my view is that Genesis is not teaching that Adam and Eve are the "scientifically" first human beings but are "the parents of the human race in a representative sense rather than a biological sense." I perceive my view (which I only "tend to believe" but am certainly open-minded on) to not fall easily and concisely into the three-point outline you stated, which is why my answer was more complex than just saying "I agree with position X, as you stated it." Sorry! But that's what back-and-forth discussion is for. So in seeking further clarification, you've written: > So let's narrow down my 'substantial' option. While I won't tie > you to 6000 years, what amount of time is likely the max since > the garden, do you think? I don't know. The fact is that I don't believe Genesis is teaching us anything about chronology, so that we can't really put a definite figure on it. How about if I just throw out a figure of 25,000 years, and try it out. Or 15,000 years. Or 50,000 years. I don't know. > I assume you can't go much farther back > that 10 or 12 thousand just because of the exponential population > issues that raises. If it has been just 4000-ish since the flood > and the math says we will run out of room before too many more > thousand pass, then it can't have been more than 8 or 10 before > the flood could it? There aren't any "exponential population issues" that would at all constrain what we are talking about. Population growth may or may not be exponential. With population growth, we are not talking about something like the physics of radioactive decay. Population growth was certainly not exponential thousands of years ago. We cannot say that the population growth of recent centuries due to scientific/technological advances tells us anything at all about population patterns thousands of years ago. > If the earth has been around for 100 million years, then only a > tiny tiny slice of that has been since the garden, yes?? Yes, I agree with you about this. That is what I meant I wrote that "I tend to believe a form of (B), though I wouldn't use the word 'substantial.'" Relative to the age of the earth of a few thousand million years (~4.6 billion years), a few tens of thousands of years is only a tiny fraction like about 1/100,000 of all of earth history. In a later post, you write that: > For example... a rainbow is a scientific fact, caused > by refracted light. How, then, did God hang it in the air AFTER > the flood? Is this proof that there was no rain prior? What > happened when light refracted through water BEFORE the flood? How > was our atmosphere different before the flood and how does that > effect the way things can be reliably dated? If there was no > rain, what is different now that causes there to be rain, and > what effect do those changes have on our ability to accurately > extrapolate dates? Steve is gonna go ballistic over this I am > sure, but they are questions that need to be answered if we are > to take an even semi-literal view of the words in the Bible. Missile is launched and on trajectory... First of all, there are two unwarranted assumptions that seem to me to be embedded in what you've stated: (1) There were no such things as rainbows (light refraction) before the flood. (2) The flood was global. And "no rain"? What about the fossil record which, for times in the very distant past, on rare occasions, shows rain drops? You should also be aware that with astronomical observation, as I've mentioned previously, astronomers are observing events from the distant past, and there are ways in which radical alterations of properties of physical processes, if they existed, would be observed. If, for example, light refraction was different in the past, then astronomers would observe the effects of such a different physical property of light with the observations of events from the past. Since no such difference is observed, we know that light refraction was the same, say, 168,000 years ago (when the supernova SN1987A exploded), let alone only 4,000 or 7,500 years ago. Please don't forget the point I made in my previous post on this subject, which was: This is where the young earth creationist argument (yes, it is a young earth creationist argument) against antiquity breaks down, because in the field of astronomy the universe's past is in fact directly observable. I (and others) have already mentioned the example of the supernova named SN1987A. That is just one example of astronomers having directly observed events that have taken place in the distant past, events that took place hundreds of thousands, millions, and even billions of years ago. The explosion of SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago, and this is a directly observed event. My discussion is indeed an honest one, because the antiquity of the universe is directly observable.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/30427
From: Steve Heiden Dear Ray, --- In BereanSpirit, Ray West wrote [7/12/01 4:24 pm, msg #30370]: > Oooooooh... the missile defense system kicks in and sends a lob > back... Chaff deployed... >> First of all, there are two unwarranted assumptions that seem to >> me to be embedded in what you've stated: (1) There were no such >> things as rainbows (light refraction) before the flood. (2) The >> flood was global. >> > > 1) Gen 9:13 indicates that this was the first time there was a > rainbow. It is insignificant as a reminder of the covenant that > God would not again destroy all flesh with a flood if it existed > prior. Here is the text: Genesis 9:12-16 [RSV] God is declaring the rainbow as a "sign of the covenant." This doesn't indicate that rainbows didn't exist prior to this. While I will grant that such an interpretation might be a plausible one as a first step, it is certainly not the only interpretation, and I believe the interpretation of this being God's declaration of a sign is a more plausible interpretation of the text. Furthermore, you're forgetting that in addition to this we know through astronomical observation, as an objectively determinable fact, that the properties of light refraction did not change at some point in time several thousand years ago. > 2) See #1. Gen 9 says that ALL FLESH was destroyed. What evidence > do we have in scripture that it was not global? See Genesis 41:57; 1 Samuel 17:46; 1 Kings 10:24; Isaiah 13:5, 27:6; Jeremiah 51:7, 24-25, 41, 49; Lamentations 2:15; Ezekiel 32:4, 34:6; Habakkuk 1:6; Zephaniah 1:18, 3:8; Zechariah 1:11; Luke 2:1; John 12:19, 21:25; Acts 11:28, 17:6, 24:5; Romans 1:8, 9:17; Colossians 1:6. What evidence do you have that Genesis 9 is supposed to be interpreted as a scientific discussion using technically precise terminology? These other verses I have cited demonstrate just the opposite. Scripture often uses what we might call "hyperbole" according to popular ("of the people") usage. >> And "no rain"? What about the fossil record which, for times in >> the very distant past, on rare occasions, shows rain drops? > > See... I don't know... But I have to default to the biblical > account, which leads me to believe that this million years thing > is off base. Where does the biblical account lead you to believe that "this million years thing is off base"? Furthermore, a person interested in the truth has no choice but to take into account not just the biblical text but also the objectively determinable physical remains of past events of earth history and the direct observation of past events in the history of the universe. God is the author of both, and God is not the author of error, therefore they must, as you stated it, "gel." > Genesis 2 > says that God had not caused it to rain on the earth at that > point. Now we have agreed that at this point in history, millions > of years would have had to pass because we said that the garden > existed in a tiny slice of time on your calendar. So according to > the Bible, it would NOT have rained for all of those million > years. Now... YOU are forced to explain why the Bible is not > literal at this point... My understanding is that Genesis 2:5 is in reference to the "Garden of Eden," and not to the entire earth, and this is regardless of whether or not we interpret Genesis 2:5 as "literally" or allegorical.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/30588
From: Steve Heiden Dear Ray, While we currently disagree in our conclusions, it is clear, I think, that we both raise significant points for discussion. Thank you again for your posts. --- In BereanSpirit, Ray West wrote: > I will leave the rainbow discussion for now because you at least > acknowledge that my view is plausible. What I acknowledge is that the precise meaning of the verse is ambiguous with respect to the idea that it supposedly teaches that rainbows did not exist before the flood. The best that we can say about your point is that, based solely on the text of that verse alone (in other words, without taking anything else whatsoever into consideration, which is not the correct way to do things), the 'rainbows did not exist before the flood' is one possible interpretation, but not the only one. Since it is not the only possible interpretation, and since it also happens to be an interpretation that is a demonstrably false idea by objective examination of the physical world, why should we give it any credence at all? In other words, based on all considerations relevant to the idea, the idea itself is not only implausible but is known to be wrong. We should therefore not accept it. Thus, I actually do not acknowledge that that interpretation is plausible. What I acknowledge is that a person who knows nothing about all of the "relevant considerations" might, on the basis of the text of that verse alone (and not even any other texts in the Bible), think that rainbows did not exist prior to the flood. However, that interpretation is incorrect.
>>> 2) See #1. Gen 9 says that ALL FLESH was destroyed. What
>>> evidence do we have in scripture that it was not global?
>>
>> See Genesis 41:57; 1 Samuel 17:46; 1 Kings 10:24; Isaiah 13:5,
>> 27:6; Jeremiah 51:7, 24-25, 41, 49; Lamentations 2:15; Ezekiel
>> 32:4, 34:6; Habakkuk 1:6; Zephaniah 1:18, 3:8; Zechariah 1:11;
>> Luke 2:1; John 12:19, 21:25; Acts 11:28, 17:6, 24:5; Romans 1:8,
>> 9:17; Colossians 1:6.
>>
>> What evidence do you have that Genesis 9 is supposed to be
>> interpreted as a scientific discussion using technically precise
>> terminology? These other verses I have cited demonstrate just
>> the opposite. Scripture often uses what we might call
>> "hyperbole" according to popular ("of the people") usage.
>
> For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth
> forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of
> the earth all living things that I have made. Gen 7:4
>
> I have a serious problem with the scriptures if this does not
> mean what it says. What else can I trust? This is clear statement
> that I do not believe can be resigned to hyperbole.
Do you deny that the list of verses I cited show clearly that scripture uses hyperbolic language in the context of using these kinds of phrases? "Resigned"? "Have a serious problem with the scriptures" because they are not written in a manner more to our satisfaction? I don't particularly like the fact that, for example, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation are so cryptic, either, but that's the way it is, and I live with that. My subjective feelings and desires are completely irrelevant to determining the manner in which scripture is 'supposed to' have been written, especially considering that I wasn't even alive at the time. You should also be aware that there is no indication of any kind, either historically, archaeologically, geologically, paleontologically, or biologically, that all living things on our planet, except for a tiny remnant at a single location, were completely wiped out at some time several thousand years ago. In fact, the information from all of these areas of objective study show precisely the opposite. Since, again, there are alternative plausible interpretations of the biblical text, please explain to me why we are supposed to pick the interpretation that is exactly the one that is a demonstrably false idea about the physical world. >>> Genesis 2 >>> says that God had not caused it to rain on the earth at that >>> point. Now we have agreed that at this point in history, >>> millions of years would have had to pass because we said that >>> the garden existed in a tiny slice of time on your calendar. So >>> according to the Bible, it would NOT have rained for all of >>> those million years. Now... YOU are forced to explain why the >>> Bible is not literal at this point... >> >> My understanding is that Genesis 2:5 is in reference to the >> "Garden of Eden," and not to the entire earth, and this is >> regardless of whether or not we interpret Genesis 2:5 as >> "literally" or allegorical. > > Read the calendar of events in Chapter 2. God finished his > creation. Then it says that this history was before any plant or > herb had grown FOR it had not rained and there was no man to till > the ground. What did it take for growth? Rain and man. THEN it > says that he planted a garden and put man there. I don't understand what point you are intending to make here. I understand Genesis 2:5 to be specifically referring to the garden, and not to the creation of the earth as whole, since in chapter 1 it is clear that plants have been created before human beings, and in Genesis 2:5 it is implied that human beings are created before the plants that are referenced. However, since Genesis 1 is clearly a metaphorical description in the first place, perhaps the Genesis 2 description has a wider reference than just to the garden. I'm not sure. I rarely view interpretations of these texts to be all that definitive since they are, in fact, not written in the manner of a technical, scientific analysis. As an additional consideration with respect to Genesis 2:6 in particular, you should note that the "mist" in that verse is the Hebrew word "'edh," and the only other place in the Bible where it is use is Job 36:27. At this point, I shall simply quote some discussion of Old Testament commentator John T. Willis (in his commentary on Genesis): It seems more likely, however, that the writer is using common biblical terminology for rain here. Frequently, the biblical writers speak of moisture rising from the earth, gathering to form clouds, then descending on the parched ground as rain (1 Kings 18:44-45; Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13; 51:16; and as a symbol for invading armies, Jer. 4:13; 47:2; Ezek. 38:9). It is significant that all these passages use the same Hebrew verb translated "went up" ('alah) that appears with mist in Genesis 2:6. So, again Ray, we see that there is a plausible interpretation of the text that is different from the traditional young earth creationist interpretation (in this case, the alternative interpretation seems quite superior, in fact). The young earth creationist doctrine does not dictate the proper interpretation of the text. And why in the world would we any longer even attempt use the doctrine of young earth creationism as a hermeneutical guide, when we already know that the entire idea of a young earth is a demonstrably false idea about the world that exists? > Let's consider something else. We agreed earlier that death was > necessary for a fossil record. When did death enter the world??? > Genesis says that the plants and fruits were given for food to > man and the animals.No until Genesis 9 (after the flood) is > instruction given for man to become a meat eater. > > 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have > given you all things, even as the green herbs. > > There is a correlation drawn here 'even as the green herbs' that > lends even more credence to the view that man was not a meat > eater until this point. > > When did death enter into the world? By your account, a very very > long time ago. By the Bible account, death was a result of sin. > > For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of > the dead. > > 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made > alive. 1 Cor 15: 21-22 > > Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and > death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all > sinned-13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not > imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from > Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to > the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him > who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the offense. For > if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God > and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded > to many Roman 5: 12-15 > > This says death spread to ALL men. It is pretty clear that this > is physical death. Not all men will die spiritually. You do understand that you are presenting scripture which uses theological language, and then you are imposing an interpretation on that language that corresponds to your prior interpretation of the Genesis creation account within the paradigm of young earth creationism, do you not? Genesis 2:17 states that Adam will die the day that he eats from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. John 5:24-25 and John 11:25-26 talk about death in a spiritual sense, while at the same time making reference to physical death. James 1:14-15 also talks about sin and death. Yet again, the problem is that young earth creationists make interpretations that are solely in correspondence to their young earth creationism doctrine, and then refuse to consider other interpretations that are more plausible but that happen to not support the young earth creationism doctrine. The hermeneutic that says that such biblical texts as related to creation must be interpreted in a literalistic fashion as if they are scientific, technical descriptions is certainly not the only hermeneutic, and I also believe that it is an incorrect hermeneutic. There is nothing wrong with seeking to interpret the Bible, and there is nothing wrong with deriving doctrinal frameworks within which interpretation are considered. What must be recognized is that there is the actual text of the Bible, inspired by God, and then there are our fallible human ideas about the meaning of the text and our fallible human ideas about how our interpretations of various portions of scripture best fit together. As you wrote several days ago, all relevant information must "gel" together. Truth can't contradict truth, and God is not the author of error. > The first death seems to be the animals that God killed to > provide clothing for Adam and Eve. This is your opinion, based on the interpretive framework of the young earth creationism doctrine. The Bible does not state this. > From there, sacrifice was > obviously instituted. Heb 9 says that without the shedding of > blood there is no forgiveness. > > There is just too much that you have to reduce to allegory, > symbolism or worse in order to end up with death prior to the > fall. Who dictates what is "too much"? You, or God? Should the demonstrably false young earth idea dictate what is "too much"? The text of the Bible is filled with, among other kinds of writing, allegorical references and religious symbolism. I'm sorry, but I don't let a doctrine developed by fallible humans to dictate to me the only possible framework of interpretation of the biblical text. If in my studies as part of seeking out truth I find good reasons to think that the young earth creationism doctrine is flawed, even to the extent that I think that the young earth creationist doctrine is completely discredited and should no longer be considered relevant, then why should I continue to allow this doctrine, which I already know to be false, to dictate to me the proper kind of interpretation? In Allan Turner's discussion forum, Hill Roberts discussed this topic. I quote him here (http://lordibelieve.org/time/discussions/Thread_1.htm):
You might also consider the following, which all discuss this particular subject of death, Adam, and Genesis:
The problem here is that you have to completely ignore reality in order to adhere to the 'no physical death before the Fall' doctrine. Please don't forget the factual example of the supernova called SN1987A that astronomers directly observed in 1987 to have exploded about 168,000 years ago. That's a directly observed event that shows quite an example of decay, long before Eve ever thought about any fruit of any kind!
Sincerely, |