Todd Wood on Exploring Creation's Hardest Problems

Do you mean live out the Bible? I accept that the Hebrews may have attempted to collect an eye for every eye stolen. Attempting to do everything the Bible mentions is not taking it literally, but practicing it. There is a difference. Taking it literally as you are describing would mean that only very rich people can keep the law, but fail God by not giving away their riches. The claim is made that no one can keep the whole law, yet Jesus did not call the rich man a liar.

People in the US, complain the rich do not pay there share of the taxes. Can you imagine trying to live the OT Law? Either God did not expect the Hebrews to ever carry out such an economy, or it was a way to prevent a disparity between the rich and the poor. The OT law is also evolution in action. Only those perfect enough to survive the demands of the law would pass on their genes.

(If you edit the post above by hitting ENTER just before “Personally” which will move it to the next line, the post will be fixed.)

So, thanks for your note… Are you understanding me to say that I’m recommending that people take the scriptures literally in every case? If so, that’s not at all what I said and clearly not what I meant.

What I said was this:

The reason I said this was made clear by @jammycakes:

Please let me know if you have any questions or it is not clear what is intended.

I still see it as if we have to live out the Bible literally so as not to be hypocrites.

I don’t think that all YEC demand anything. Which an eye for an eye literally would. I do not think that there is metaphor in Genesis 1. Yet I get in trouble for pointing out that today’s science gives us insight to what dust and earth could mean. Simple forms of matter. No metaphor needed. Just a better definition not available to readers in 1000 bc.

This statement was quite shocking to me. I think I understand what you were aiming for, but it’s a very broad statement. What made you phrase it this way?

Greetings all!

Has anyone else started reading? Any thoughts (or any further thoughts)? @jammycakes, @Michael_Callen, @aarceng?

1 Like

Hello Jonathan: I’m nearly half way through now.

1 Like

Honestly, I have no idea what you mean. Are you responding to something that was said previously? How in the world (and where) are you getting in trouble for pointing out that science gives us insight regarding dust and the earth?

I have read that “creation from dust” is metaphor for the process of evolution. Not that God actually created fully mature humans from the dust of the ground.

I view the part that heavens and earth would be vastness of space and matter. Matter without form and void. Dust of the ground still being matter after the earth had form and full of life.

That is not metaphor for whatever makes sense. Earth is formed out of matter, and so is human life. It is not a science text book, so God did not go into the full blown physics lesson. Dust being part of the earth showing a more specific type of matter.

I don’t see any contradiction at all. Tell me, in your view, when God says, “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return,” does he mean that only Adam was literally made from dust, or does he mean all of humanity was? And if he means he created all of humanity, including us today, from dust, how is that different from saying he created Adam from dust over a long period of time?

More importantly, the metaphors that allow layers of meaning and richness of interpretation are what make the Bible,or any religious text, or even any piece of great literature valuable. If you restrict yourself to only looking at the surface meaning of Genesis, there would never be any point to rereading it after the first time, would there?

1 Like

God told Adam that his punishment would be hard labor. Returning to the dust is the natural breakdown of the physical flesh, which is just matter. Adam was created on the 6th day with a nondisclosed amount of other humans. It is not given whether they contained both sexes or created in pairs. I tend to think they were created with both sexes. That sexual reproduction was totally changed with Eve, as part of her punishment and purpose in life. So no, I do not think humans were part of a long drawn out process, but were created instantly, and had bodies totally different than ours today.

Since I only mentioned chapter 1, and we have moved to chapter 3 already, there has been a change in form and narrative several times. Each chapter has it’s own way of stating things, and not just one reading will give one all there is at one time. Nor can they be lumped together and glazed over as just some metaphorical explanation. A literal event can be used as metaphor, but saying it was metaphor without an actual event, does not follow. Even if humans just imagined Scripture it still comes from God, and can be taken as fact, unless stated otherwise.

Ummmm… can you please show me where in the scriptures you are getting your information. Specifically about the “nondisclosed amount of other humans” …

Thank you for clarifying this. I read Genesis pretty differently than you do, but I’m glad we can agree that metaphorical and other indirect meanings can be important to Scripture.

Genesis 1:27 So God created humankind in his own image; in the image of God he created him:
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them: God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every living creature that crawls on the earth.”

This is the indication that the sons of God were the created beings as God’s image on earth. There is no indication that humans worked toward the state of being sons of God, but we were created as sons of God in God’s image.

The term son means “of God”. They had no human parents. It was not a reference of gender, nor a declaration that God is a single gender. The verse is describing the act of God placing humans as God’s self on earth.

Eve was taken from Adam, and later Seth was the image of Adam, not God. Humankind comes from Seth, with crossover of God’s own image until the time of the Flood. Adam was created on day six because Genesis 2:7 includes Adam in those images of God created on day 6. Chapter two was only about Adam, not the rest of the sons of God. If you want to argue that Adam was not created on day six, Adam was still “of God” without human parents. That is getting into the assumption that God created a separate control subject apart from the rest of humanity, as in a behavior experiment, according to the plan God envisioned from the beginning. Chapter 2 does state that God took this particular human and placed him in a situation seperate from other humans.

1 Like

@Timtofly Are you ever concerned that you are extrapolating too much information from some fairly obtuse and poetic passages?

I don’t really want to argue about anything at all. When I read the first couple of chapters of Genesis, I see a story that highlights humanity’s need for redemption. That even a couple who would have been in the very presence of God, living in paradise, with only one, single rule to follow will eventually choose to sin. Because they will, so will I.

I don’t see androgenous people. God placing “human selves” on the earth or any of this. I see man’s tendency to sin, but God providing a way out. This, I’m sure of. I don’t see any reason to add to this perfectly fine story any complexity that may not be justifiable.

3 Likes

I’ve read Todd’s book. It has some interesting points although I disagree in some areas.

2 Likes

Greetings, @aarceng! I would love to hear your thoughts (including where you disagree), if you would like to share! I would like to hear the thoughts of @Michael_Callen as well (if/when he has time :slight_smile: )!

1 Like