If you aren’t curious about how we got to be this way, there probably is no reason … for you. It is entirely optional.
It sounds like the only form of Christianity you can conceive of is something imbecilic. You’re entitled to your opinion and your anger. I’m not a Christian but I was never interested in pointing out the flaws in the very worst examples. Too easy. This particular site includes some of the best examples of clear thinking, open minded Christians that I have met. I honestly think it enhances their lives. Not all of them of course but if your complaint is all the obvious conflicts between science and fundamentalism, this isn’t where you will find them. Did you grow up in that sort of church? Some here did too and they’ve evolved better approaches to theology.
In recently published "The Beginning of Days” (Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies) I show that the Bible does not teach Young Earth Creationism because it doesn’t establish a dateable chain of events back to the original creation: (beginning on slide 71, p. 153): https://jbtsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/JBTS-6.1Part-2.pdf
Thanks for posting. My quick look shows it to be interesting, though technically way beyond my understanding without study. It seems to make a good case for an indeterminate date for creation.
The main point is that the Bible makes no claim about the age of the earth at all because it says that the universe and earth was created at an undisclosed time prior to day one.
Perhaps one could answer that by arguing that the emergence of humans was a a directed step in which the Creator fashioned mankind from the raw material of it’s ancestors.
But then it’s difficult to account for all the precursors that came and went before modern humans and where do Neanderthals fit in such a scheme?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
49
Ah, the earth became tohu and bohu, waste and decayed. Before the 7 days of recreation. Yeah been there, for 40 attenuating years, until the thread snapped 12 years ago.
In this article I show that the Bible does not teach Young Earth Creationism because it doesn’t establish a dateable chain of events back to the original creation: "The Beginning of Days”, JBTS (beginning on slide 71, p. 153): https://jbtsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/JBTS-6.1Part-2.pdf
Maybe. But we don’t know that for certain, so I don’t know if it’s fair to say that.
I would agree from my own perception that many politicians who wear the label of Christian are not so…
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
67
We know it for certain as a disproportionate number are well educated, excessively lawyers (correlated with psychopathy), and atheism is correlated with that. A large minority are lying. Clergy too of course. It’s a statistical, scientific certainty.
In what I wrote “imbecilic” characterizes the quality of Christianity as you describe it, not you. I could of course be wrong but before I concede I was wrong, please cite even one thing you’ve written that was not dismissive of Christianity.
You also seem peeved that I took a guess about where your apparent contempt for the religion came from. You could simply tell me I’m wrong if I am. Regardless I promise not to guess again about what you may be thinking based on what little you write.
In the post you edited you had asked me to give you the last word and I did. If you’d still like to have the last word, go right ahead.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
70
It’s known as gap theory or gap creationism. It’s been known continuously for at least 1900 years by Christians. Let alone Jews. How YEC double down on denying it I really don’t care.
Indeed. Further, the term “…created the heavens and the earth” needs to be recognised as a single, indivisible unit: an all-encompassing merism: “…created the-heavens-and-the-earth” or “… HeavensAndTheEarth”.
This presents a further problem for attempted concordism. The universe came into existence about 15 billion years ago (Big Bang and all that); planet earth about 5 billion years ago. So for most (about two thirds) of the universe’s existence, planet earth did not even exist. This stands in stark contrast to the linguistic unitary “heavens-and-the-earth” of the text. (And there is the additional issue of our imposed and problematic assumptions onto the text: that its “heavens” can be understood as our “universe”, and its “earth” as our “planet earth”.)
I’m increasingly convinced that we need to jettison totally any attempted concordism. Far better to see the text as a theological stance, doing a “compare and contrast” with and against the prevailing cultures of the times (polytheism; mankind as mere playthings of the gods; etc.).
John, thanks for the article. I too was troubled by Lyons’ original argument, and you’ve pointed out some of my own concerns. I first met Lyons at ETS this year, when he came to my talk on Genesis 1. He was very gracious to me, despite us having major disagreements on the syntax of the text. He actually teaches just up the road from me, so I hope to continue conversation with him.