No on two counts Mervin. I’m intrigued as to how
became
And no, I’m not looking for a smoking gun of foretelling. There is none. Whereas there are reasons to believe regardless. Even for a rationalist like me.
1 Like
Well, okay… Yeah. I wasn’t trying to change the meaning of what you said. My shorthand repetition of it just got careless. Of course I meant the writer’s concept of who God is. We hardly have any other way at our disposal to approach any subject, much less that one.
1 Like
Surely, I have missed the unspoken explanation that all must know. The Genesis creation narrative must be literal, meaning a Young Earth Creation and an actual Adam and Eve, because of a particular view of inspiration that depends upon inerrancy. For the YEC divine inspiration means the Bible is inerrant about realty – history, science, geography, spiritual realm, etc. This perspective is universally applied to all the biblical text since they are in the Bible. Accordingly, if Genesis is not historical and scientific, neither can the gospels be historical and scientific just because both texts are in the divinely inspired Bible. This is why when they speculate on The Apocalypse they start by claiming to interpret it literally and then don’t.
To change the beliefs of YEC one needs to begin with inerrancy and inspiration as well as literalism.
1 Like
Reality is revealed in two places, in the Bible and in God’s creation. If there is an apparent conflict, the interpretation of one or the other or both is in error. There is so much evidence for the antiquity of both the universe and the earth, that insisting on a young creation makes God into the Great Falsifier, if the evidence isn’t real and he has created the appearance of history that doesn’t exist? That’s rather blasphemous, don’t you think?
YECism also belittles the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity.
YECism also belittles Psalm 19:1-2.
That knowledge that speaks to vastness and antiquity is available to unbelievers as well, or maybe especially, and YECism proves Augustine correct:
2 Likes
You are right. the question of the view of inerrancy really dictates the view, and if you are not willing to budge on what inerrancy is, other discussion is futile.
Ok guys. But listen up. When I was in the Garden of Eden the other day chopping trees for firewood, I observed that the trees had only a single growth ring. Adam asked what I was doing, and I explained to him that I was cutting wood for a fire, and he asked, “What is fire?” I told him I needed fire to cook my food and keep warm in the winter. Adam asked, “What is winter?” My reply was to ask him if he remembered last years’ cold weather? He answered, He didn’t remember anything before yesterday and didn’t know there was a last year. Of course, this is a translation of our conversation in Hebrew.
YEC have more than science to deal with.
5 Likes
Here is a short 4 minute video where N.T. Wright explains what he means by Literal and Genesis 1 N.T. Wright and Pete Enns: What Do You Mean by Literal? - YouTube
3 Likes
Good 4 minutes spent. I like the division into concrete and abstract.
True. How did Adam learn to speak?
Phil, I have great appreciation for you and the positivity you bring to this board. I do not know you, but I admire you and see you as a role model. You and those like you make the world a better place.
I would fall into the camp of Genesis is literal. This is what I hold myself to and don’t impose that standard on anyone else. For me comes to the question of who is God? Is God all mighty, all powerful, all creative? Anything other than special creation diminishes God in my view. If humans are created in God’s image, why would God leave our creation or formation to chance? On the physical side of the coin I do not see how there can be a naturalistic origin of life and a naturalistic cause for differentiation of life. Evolution as an alternative to special creation is a complete and total non starter for me.
In terms of the physical earth, I believe Genesis provides the narrative that best matches up with the physical evidence.
If God is all mighty, all knowing, all powerful why would His word not be true? Why would it not be scientifically accurate? I do not believe that Genesis is contradicted by the physical evidence.
1 Like
What makes you think he did? I can affirm evolution and the antiquity of the cosmos without denying God’s sovereignty.
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. Proverbs 16:33
You would be badly mistaken, since you appear to be referring to a young earth reading.
I agree with you about Phil and that you see him that way too disposes me to expect good things from you too. If I may split a hair, I wonder if you accept any responsibility for your interpretation? I mean to ask, do you literally find direct biblical direction for your interpretation or is it more a matter of fitting together with your understanding as a whole? Regardless, welcome to the forums and the Phil fan club. 
3 Likes
Correct! The physical evidence says very ancient universe, ancient earth and evolution.
Genesis (we should probably say “Genesis chapters 1-11”) is not contradicted by this. A YEC interpretation of Gen.1-11 may be (is!) contradicted by this. But Gen.1-11 is not contradicted by this.
The issue lies in interpretation. In how we interpret God-inspired word of Gen.1-11 and the God-given science of things being ancient and of life evolving.
1 Like
“It seems to me that it was well said by Madama Serenissima, and insisted on by your reverence, that the Holy Scripture cannot err, and that the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. But I should have in your place added that, though Scripture cannot err, its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways; and one error in particular would be most grave and most frequent, if we always stopped short at the literal signification of the words.”–Galileo Galilei
2 Likes
Tedious transcript preparation for posting here. but useful, IMO.
Humorous beginning in the transcript when Peter Enns introduces himself. In the existing, unedited transcript, he introduces himself as: “Hi, I’m Dr. Peter Enzyme.”
1 Like
Yeah, I have met some (mostly online) who pretty much throw the whole thing out and say it is all pure fiction and others will compare it to Harry Potter, Spiderman or even unicorns, though to my knowledge most of the time such characters and creatures are tied to a physical plane of existence according to most text and media.
P.S. sorry for the rant I have been worked up with college (technical school) and trying to find meaning in my life.
2 Likes
I appreciate your sense of reverence which leads you to this position, but for me, nearly the opposite is true.
When I look upon nature, I see nothing which is static. We do not live in a world as idle as a painted planet in a painted cosmos. Everything everywhere is a kaleidoscope of change. Were we eternal the mountains would rise and fall as ocean waves. Time is process.
To me, a static nature diminishes creation to something a Genie could pull off. A dynamic universe, on the other hand, speaks of an incomprehensible God.
1 Like
I like that. Dr. Enzyme. He gets things done.
1 Like
Thank you, and thank you for your thoughtful answer. Perhaps holding God in awe in something creationists of all stripes can agree upon. The universe is truly and awesome place, both in its expanse and on the molecular scale, And yes, to the quantum level though that is beyond my grasp. I can see how one could feel that evolution tends to reduce that to a mechanical process, which might also reduce God, which is related to be argument against ID given by some in the EC camp, as if you put God in the gaps, then when that gap is filled when knowledge advances, that also diminishes God. I think it best to see God in all things, which the biblical approach supports.
Genesis is properly understood if read as if it proposes the question, Why did God create? These first eleven chapters of Genesis reveal opportunities for people to accomplish the purpose of creation. However, each effort by people ends in failure: the casting out from the garden, the flood, and Babel. Chapter twelve begins to reveal God’s plan rather than the peoples’ efforts for accomplishing the reason God created.