I would tend to agree with you, in the sense that our interpretation is not some willy-nilly task that depends on how we’re feeling that day. But consulting the Bible about it isn’t always a simple thing. There are no post-in notes that pop out saying “This is just a figure of speech” when Revelation talks of the “four corners of the earth.” We do have to rely on hermeneutics when interpreting what a passage says and what its intent may have been.
So when God told Adam “for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,” is it perfectly clear that this meant he was going to die within a literal 24-hour period?
I agree with Pastor Terry and have experienced a similar intellectual and spiritual journey as him, although from a scientific background rather than theological. (Full disclosure: Pastor Terry has become a good friend in the past year.) Coming from a Computer Science and Bioinformatics background with a strong interest in the natural sciences, I realized that either I had been taught incorrectly how to interpret the origins stories in the Bible, or my science teachers were making a big mistake. Up to that point, two things kept me from abandoning my YEC beliefs: 1) My fear of being wrong about the Bible and losing my faith. 2) My uncertainty about the facts about nature revealed by science. I came to realize that theology and science are just two ways of understanding God’s Word and God’s World, respectively, and that both can change and have changed over the ages (remember Galileo). As we come to see more and more of the truth of the natural world revealed by science, we come closer to a more accurate understanding of what the Holy Spirit wants to teach us through God’s Word. Writers like John Walton, Peter Enns, Bruce Waltke, Darrel Falk and others have been enormous help in overcoming my fear and uncertainty. Many questions remain, but one belief that does not change is that God is the sovereign creator of all the world and life as we know it.
Welcome, Arnie, and thanks for sharing part of your journey. Many of us here have shared similar paths but still come to the same “big picture” conclusion as you have – that God is sovereign, even if that doesn’t mean having ready-made answers to every aspect of how faith and science interrelate.
I believe Genesis 1 is a 6 24 hour day period. I just don’t think it’s talking about a material creation. If it is, then it contradicts Job 38:4-7:
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (ESV)
How can the stars sing at the earth’s creation if they weren’t made until 4 days later?
Many of us have looked at what the original author of Genesis 1-11 meant, and that IS taking it literally. If you read the Bible straight through without taking into account the type of literature and how the author was conveying God’s word, you’ll find a bunch of contradictions. You have to go deeper than a surface level reading.
I believe the Bible is God’s word. I also believe he used evolution to create us. If he really did a special creation 6000 years ago, he’s been incredibly deceptive about nature, and nature is supposed to declare the glory of God - deception isn’t glory. So again, contradictions if I take your interpretation of Genesis 1. Some parts of the Bible take more work to fully understand, though the theological message is pretty easy to see in Genesis, no matter how you interpret those chapters.
It is being raised to think like Gerald above that planted the seeds for me rejecting Christianity after 45 years, and it was mostly learning about geology that started the dominoes falling. There is also no good way to explain how we can see stars millions of light years away if everything was created less than 10,000 years ago, unless you are willing to believe in a God who is very deceptive.
When Christians like Gerald are so stubbornly wrong about things we know for sure about this life, that everything wasn’t created less than 10,000 years ago, how can we believe anything they claim to know about the next life?
Now, you attempts to put words into my mouth, just as you try to do to God.
If you disagree, then you will have to recognize that you are disagreeing with what God says in His Word.
You do believe that God says that “the soul that sins shall die”? Does the Bible say this or not?
It also tell us what sin is. It says that sin is the transgression of God’ law. Does it say this or not?
How is what I said not in line with what God’s Word has said.
And the Scripture does say that Jesus is the Word of God, does it not?
Does it not say that the “Word became flesh”?
I’m sorry to say this but I believe that you are not rightly dividing God’s Word.
Tim - The majority of Christians worldwide believe that the universe is old and that living organisms evolve through time. They believe that God used evolution as his creative method and that the book of God’s works does not contradict the book of God’s word. For me, the fact that some Christians are willing to deny plain and valid evidence is not sufficient reason to reject the whole of Christianity. The majority of scientists are not antagonistic to the Christian faith. In fact, many scientists are committed Christian people. The primary question is not what you think of the church, or a cranky subset of the church, but what you think of Jesus. Does knowing and trusting him make a difference in this life? Is it better to keep your options open with regard to the possibility of eternal life? I apologize for my long answer. I just don’t think this is an all or nothing situation.
Gerald – Permit me to offer a few comments. First, I understand your concern for maintaining the authority of the word of God. Does the Bible say, “… The soul that sins shall die?” Of course it does. Does it say, “… Sin is the transgression of God’s law?” Absolutely. The challenge is not the Bible itself, but how to interpret it correctly. Think of it this way – the original author, inspired by God, wrote down those thoughts. Those writings were preserved and passed along. We don’t have any of the originals any longer. Those original documents were written in an ancient, foreign language. They had to be translated into many languages, including English. So there are several steps between the original author and you and I the hearers today. When I hear someone say, “the Bible says…” what I really hear them saying is, “… My interpretation of the Bible says…” Equally committed Christians, people who love the Lord with heart and mind and soul and strength, don’t always agree on the interpretation of Scripture, especially the creation accounts. When you and I get to heaven and we stand before the Lord and he asks, “Why should I let you into heaven?” I don’t think the first thing we ought to say is “I believed in a literal six-day creation.” I think the first thing we ought to say is, “I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. I believe that he died on the cross to save me from my sins.”
Laypeople normally don’t talk about original sin, the fall and Pauline theology. Laypeople having studied at school /higher education are steeped in evolution often disregarding the agenda of lecturers or simply place Genesis and Evolution into a box to be ignored.
The clergy are steeped in theology - original sin and will struggle wit BioLogos re-interpretation not so much of Genesis as prose but the actual teaching of Paul - original sin - death - atonement. BioLogos is weak in this area as to be expected as they are first scientists.
No, I’m disagreeing with your interpretation of Genesis 1. I agree with the words. I disagree with your interpretation of the words.
Do you believe that “there is no one righteous”?
Do you believe that Job was righteous?
The Bible says both. If you “just read the plain words and meaning” without evaluating things like context, then you have a straight up paradox or contradiction. We all interpret. I don’t agree with your interpretation. And you’re not God.
Yeah, I’m not sure that’s so simple as you make it out to be. I know plenty of “steeped in theology clergy” (and professors and theologians) that don’t have a huge problem with evolution. I think it’s a mistake to presume that depth of theology and science are at odds.
“The majority of Christians worldwide believe that the universe is old…”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe this cranky subset of Christians who are Young Earthers are the majority of Christians in the U.S. and trying very hard to export it to majority Catholic countries, turning Old Earth accepting Catholics into science denying, YEC believing Evangelicals.
What do I think of Jesus? This is probably a result of being taught the Bible is inerrant, but when I realized that YEC wasn’t true, in particular flood geology was wrong, and that Noah’s never happened at all, it didn’t take long to remember that Jesus talked about the flood of Noah as if it actually happened, and I knew it didn’t, so Jesus was wrong too.
2 Timothy 1:20-21. We use the Bible as the standard to interpret the Bible.
The wages of sin is death. Right? God said that the wicked will be destroyed. The wicked are those who choose to make other gods their god. And not God.
When you hear some say the Bible says, they should be saying what the Bible says.
For example. God loves us. And the supporting verse is.
Is there anything that can be misinterpreted with this. No.
Are there verses that can be misinterpreted. Yes. When you do not include any other verses that may contradict what you think that verse is saying.
Like when Jesus says that the “Father is greater than I”. There are some individuals who take this verse and claim that Jesus is not God. And using this verse alone they feel vindicated.
But when you add other verses like John chapter one, where God revealed that Jesus was there in the beginning, and that He was the Word, and that He, the Word was God, Then the true meaning of what Jesus meant is begins to come clear. And when you add the verses as to why Christ says that the Father was greater, where He tells us that He “He became a little lower than the angels”, we see why Jesus said what He said.
Now, let me ask you. Can you find a verse that supports another idea, your idea, for verses like, “the soul that sins, it shall die” or “the wages of sin is death”. Or “he that breaks my law and teaches others to do so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom”.
Or "God is not slack concerning His promises, as some men count slackness. But is longsuffering…not wanting any to perish, (die).
In other words God does not break His promises. He says He will forgive us our sins. And He will. He says He will make us His children, and He will. He says He will return to take us home. And He will.
So when He says that the sinner without Christ will bear the penalty for their sin, we can be sure that God is making idle promises. Those who refuse to allow God to cleanse them, and make their sin, their god, will be found wanting. And they will be cleansed from life, along with all of sin, that marred this Universe.
But please. Provide what you may think is another way to look at these texts. We can look for the supporting verses to see if what you offer, rings true.
And as far as the Sabbath is concerned, it is a commandment from God. We can’t say that anything we did makes us worthy of heaven other than claiming the death of our Savior. But remember why the Savior came to die. It was because of our sin. And breaking any of God’s commandments is sin. So to refuse to honor Gods Sabbath, is a sin.
So remember what James said about belief. That we show it by how we live. And to say we believe and call Jesus Lord, but do not do the things He asks, means we are not allowing Him to be Lord of all in our lives.
Does this verse found in 2 Timothy
4;3 answer your question? Read a minute are you a Christian? The evidence for an old Earth are mainly evolutionists who atheists. They hide, twist and deny the evidence that point to a young earth.
This is a completely baseless comment that shows you aren’t very well informed on this issue. Plenty of evidence for an old earth comes from geology and astrophysics and doesn’t have anything to do with evolution.