Christy, I used to be a fundamentalist. I believed in a literal 6-day creation for the very reason that this is what the scripture says, this is what the texts reflect. From a Christian point-of-view, it is the text itself that is “inspired” (breathed by God), NOT the interpretations of the text. Christians do not go around (usually) saying that Bible scholars are inspired and infallible and inerrant. They reserve these characteristics for the texts. It is the texts that are inspired, infallible, and inerrant. Therefore, the “entire academic filed of biblical studies” can say anything they want to about the MEANING of the texts (and they do, which is why there is so much disagreement). But they are not being faithful to what the text SAYS, only to their infused meanings read back into the texts. If Genesis doesn’t mean 6 literal days (as it says), then what does it mean? By your criteria, it would mean anything that a particular Bible scholar believes it to mean. I’m no longer a Christian but I have to admit that it is the fundamentalists who are being the most faithful to the Bible because they are the ones who believe, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” The moderate/progressive approach is to say, “God said it, but it doesn’t mean what it says.” So which group really believes that these are the very words of God?
Christy, this problem with hermeneutics is rife in Christianity. Allow me, please, to change subjects for a moment. What if I, claiming that science is God’s gift to us to help us best understand how the world works and what truth is, said that I believed Jesus’ resurrection is not a literal, historical event? What if I claimed that it is poetry? What if I claimed that it is a vision?
Christians would be on me like white on rice condemning me to hell because “if Christ be not raised, you are still dead in your sins.” The Christian doctrine of redemption and eternal life depends upon the texts concerning Jesus’ resurrection being interpreted “plain sense”, literally, for just what they say. So if I were to claim that the resurrection was a poem or a vision or non-literal, I would be pummeled with, “But the Bible says…” ad infinitum. You can’t have it both ways. Not if you’re going to maintain a logical hermeneutic. If the same God who wrote that Jesus was resurrected also wrote that the Universe was created in 6 days, what right do any of us have, if we are Christians who claim to believe the Bible, to say that the text doesn’t mean what it says. This is one (but not the only one) reason that I can no longer be a Christian. Christians claim to believe the Bible. And I don’t. It doesn’t line up with reality. So either God is deceiving us with reality, or there is something really wrong with the Bible.
So birds evolved before land creatures?
[said in a friendly but curious tone]
Bingo. But then you go on to elevate yourself above this level of needing to interpret. Your reading (exclusively limited to those who agree with you on the six 24-hour day interpretation), is also equated as being the infallible interpretation (contrary to your denial that it is any interpretation at all) along with the word of God. You denied scholars, pastors, and theologians what you so freely granted to yourself: infallibility to know what the Bible teaches.
Mervin, first I don’t believe in Genesis. I’m not a Bible-believer. I believe that science is the best revealer of truth and reality. So, contrary to your assertion, I’m not claiming infallibility to know what the Bible teaches. What I AM claiming is to know what the Bible SAYS. It says 6 days of creation – evening and morning. Days. If it means something other than 6 days, the problem is with the Bible, not with me. Surely God, if he is God, could have stipulated in Genesis that he began creation about 13.7 billion years ago and that creation continues (again despite what the text says about creation being done).
FWIW, I came to this website and forum because I heard Dr. Collins say, in a number of his talks, that it is possible to be a scientist AND a Christian. I will NOT imply that he is neither. But what I will say is that his approach comes down to, “Science is correct about evolution, and the Bible doesn’t mean what it says.” If the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, then it can’t be trusted as a source of truth. Truth-tellers don’t lie.
Also: Trees and fruit bearing plants (day 3) before sea (day 5) and land animals (day 6)?
Sea animals are pre-Cambrian. Vascular plants date around the Silurian but none would be confused with a tree let alone a fruit bearing tree. Animals are already on the land by then. Land plants that would be anything like a tree are mid to late Devonian. I’m not convinced and observer receiving a vision likely to confuse algal mats of the pre-Cambrian with an apple or fig tree.
Regarding the comment about whether birds could come before land creatures, see counter point on this link.
From a practical standpoint, climate change was extreme on land versus sea and so it actually makes sense that birds could live on land before creatures with legs who could not migrate well during climate changes.
Regarding the 6, 24 hour days issue, I used to think of days as a period of time, but now believe it was actually 24 hours of observed time. The key is that man did not exist to observe creation and was put on the earth at the end of the 6th day. So who was doing the observing? God, through the Holy Spirit.
As scientists know, a photon travels at light speed and per the general theory of relativity, if we rode on a photon, time would stop for us, or become infinite when traveling at this speed. While an observer would see us traveling at the speed of light, we as the traveler would experience timelessness. Of course our bodies consist of matter, and it would require infinite energy to accelerate our bodies to this speed and so this is not feasible. However, for the photon which has no mass, and for the spiritual body of God, this is not only feasible, it is reality. So how could God create the universe in 6 days? If the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Triune God steps out of infinite time to implement the will of the Father, and experiences the time of a traveler going at a velocity of 0.99999999999999999999 times the speed of light, one day to God would be the equivalent of 2.5 Billion years to us today in earth time. The universe in earth time was created in ~15 Billion years earth time by the geological record and other scientific evidence, and yet by God time it would be 6 days, and indeed in Genesis, the narrative talks about God’s day, and evening and morning the first day doesn’t mean that it is bedtime and he wakes up in the morning at the end of the first day. It is how people in that time described the end of a day - I finish my work then it is the evening of the workday and morning is the end of the first day.
There is also a rather neat YouTube video that is perhaps even better at explaining this.
@AMWolfe @Argon when were talking about animals and plants the key word in Genesis is “Kind”. Plant kind begins on the third day. Rather than inventing words for ancient plants the account rightly points out that all plants come from those original Plants including modern seed bearing plants. If you think of evolution as an unfolding of God’s plan then you see how all future plants can be included in the first plant. Additionally Genesis is concerned with explaining the originals of what we see today. Rather than invent scientific terms by ancient plants which ancient people would have laughed at the Genesis account refers to the ancient versions of modern organisms by their modern names. The land animals on day 6 is referring to the rise of mammals. What we think of as land animals are generally mammals. Important animals like cows for example are specifically mentioned.
You my friend, while I don’t doubt your good intentions, are putting God in a box. God outside of time there’s no such thing as a day for God. God doesn’t travel at the speed of light because God is distinct from the universe. As far as the days go I think a Revelation given over 7 days is probably a good way to deal with that.
You are still a Fundamentalist. I think that’s your problem.
Perhaps so, Jamie, if I were still a Christian. On the other hand, let’s pursue theological logic for a moment. If you are a Christian, then Jesus (or his spirit) lives in you, which, according to Christians, is the very Spirit of God himself inside you. If this is true, if it is ontological reality that the all-knowing God of the Universe lives inside you and you have “the mind of Christ”, then you (or any other Christian on this forum) should be able to explain why the Genesis account does not match what we know of origins via science. If any Christian can do this, and if all other Christians who have the same Spirit inside them agree (which they should because God cannot lie and is not the author of confusion), I would give serious consideration to the position that the Creator is Yahweh of the Judeo-Christian traditions.
So far as I can see, the counterpoint in this link is essentially a variation on, “The Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it.” That, and a whole lot of skepticism regarding mainstream science. Is there something specific in this 5,000-word wide-ranging essay that you’d like to highlight as a counterpoint?
Every form of winged creature — insects, pterosaurs, birds, bats — evolved from land creatures over millions of years. There are no examples of winged creatures evolving in any other way, to my knowledge.
That’s my essential contention with the “vision” interpretation, as I’ve laid out elsewhere on this thread and other recent threads. I have yet to hear a convincing rebuttal, though I don’t have anything against folks in the “vision camp.”
I only hope for your sake that you can park your extreme fundamentalist thought habits at the door when you read/speak of science matters. If I treated science how you treat theology, I would rightly be laughed out of the room by all of us who take science seriously.
Christian belief seems fragile enough, but fundamentalism often stays absorbed down into the very bones.
Plants were not the first living things.Photosynthetic bacteria arose from chemoautotrophic bacteria. Likewise, photosynthesis is a secondary evolutionary acquisition in eukaryotes. Animal kinds have origins at least as deep as plants.
If an observer was on the Earth’s surface and near water, the oldest life they would see (without a microscope) would be non-photosynthetic slimes of bacterial films. Later, they would see reddish slimes of cyanobacteria and stromatolites. Sometime afterwards the Earth’s atmosphere oxygenates, and eukaryotes diversify. Some eukaryotes acquired photosynthesis via symbiosis with photosynthetic bacteria. Multicellular life arises still later and with the development of an ozone layer, life on land emerges.
Also: Land animals vs birds? Mammals are just as closely related to fishes as the birds. Mammals and birds share common ancestry with fish and the first terrestrial animals.
Genesis chapter 1 says that plants were created before humanity. Chapter 2 says that humanity was created before plants. Not only do these accounts conflict with science, they conflict with one another.
I don’t think I am putting God in a box when you consider he is a triune God. Expanding this point further, one comes to realize that the Triune God is not contrary to science, but indeed is a requirement of a living God. The Person of God the Father exists in infinite time to see and choose reality. In order to implement the reality of His choice, the Holy Spirit takes action in the sub infinite time. Finally the Son, Jesus Christ, the Word of God comes into existence in our time to reveal to mankind the way, the truth, and the path to eternal life. All are connected and are God, but each plays a different role. Without any one of these roles, God could not be almighty, all powerful, and omnipresent. God could not be our God without being a triune God.
I understand the technicalities. That’s where the vision interpretation comes in.
Bill,
Genesis is indeed the most difficult book in the bible to explain how it holds true for both science and theology and so I understand your position fully. Pulling back I look at two possibilities for explaining the world we live in:
- Upward Causation –There is one reality and all is matter, and the human mind is an epiphenomenon of the functioning brain.
- Downward Causation – There is one reality with all matter including the human brain existing as an epiphenomenon of Mind.
Most scientists attempt to develop a Universal Theory based on the principle of upward causation. It is presumed that all is from matter and subsequently all reality is based on the effect of random events following predictable physical laws. And the human mind is an epiphenomenon of the human brain that was created from these random events. If upward causation is a false principle, then a universal theory based on upward causation is impossible and it is a scientific “dead end”.
In my search I came to the realization that it is all about God - yes downward causation. With faith we can pursue the truth without fear and find a way to explain truth of Genesis. I feel with all my heart that the salvation of millions and perhaps billions of souls is dependent on finding this answer, and that for that purpose God will show it to us.
I pray for you to soften your heart to this possibility and in the meantime, yes, keep searching for the truth. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.
If you say so.
I stopped trying to Define God in any sort of physical reality sense when I realized that I don’t know if physical reality is even real. We can’t observe the ultimate nature of reality through our senses. We only see what we are shown.