| Author | Message | ||
| Handmaiden Registered user Username: Handmaiden Post Number: 228 Registered: 7-2008 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9MwNm0gXd8&feature=player_embedded | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1203 Registered: 7-2004  |
Once again, I find myself agreeing with Colleen's position on this one. I want to tread carefully on going beyond what Scripture actually says. I have a question that seems pertinent to this thread. Why must we assume that the creation account recorded in Genesis 1 is 100% literal but that the account recorded in Genesis 2 is metaphorical? As many of you are well aware, I fall clearly in the camp of the literalists believing the Scripture is infallible. Yet I am left wondering what basis we have for choosing one description as literal and setting aside the other as metaphor. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1204 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, You conclude that time was among the first things created. And I assume that you would agree that God is outside of time. Would you also agree that heaven is outside of time, and thus the notion that although we may die at different times here on earth none of us are arriving in heaven at a different time? What about the idea that all of the spiritual world exists outside of time? In which case discussing when Satan fell is an impossible question. There is no when outside of time. | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 153 Registered: 2-2011 |
~Thank-you, Handmaiden~ ~~~AMEN~~~ ~mj~ | ||
| Deb Registered user Username: Deb Post Number: 10 Registered: 3-2008 |
Excellent post Handmaiden! Also Ric_b I agree that we shouldn't take Genesis 1 as literal yet say Genesis 2 is metaphorical. I take both Genesis 1 and 2 literally. Genesis 2 is merely a more detailed focus on the events of day 6 of creation. | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 246 Registered: 9-2006 |
The problem with that kind of rigid literalism, applied to all parts of the Bible, is that it leads to all sorts of doctrinal mischief. Let's look at your first text: Mark 13: 18-20: “Pray that it may not happen in winter. For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved.” The text is not about the age of the earth or the sequence of creation events, but about how the final tribulation will be the worst in history. It is not controversial that there was a beginning and that God created it, and that is what He is saying. You could also use your method to infer that there may have been a tribulation at the beginning also—obviously not what Jesus was teaching. But super-literalism opens the door to such speculations. Using these methods, we can also make a strong argument for geocentrism, the doctrine of a stationary earth as the center of the universe. Maverick Catholic scholar Robert Sungenis does just that. In Joshua 10, Joshua asked that the sun and moon stand still, and it states: “At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.” Sungenis points out that if we say that God merely stopped earth's rotation, we make the Holy Spirit out to be a liar. Literal reading says the day was prolonged by God literally stopping the sun and moon, not the earth. Sungenis is being consistant with his premises. The Bible frequently speaks of the sun and moon rising and setting, and never once states that the earth is not the center of the universe. Traditional literalism requires us to read geocentrism into those passages, and reject the evidence of science. Moreover, when David said that God created the earth in its place so that it cannot be moved, why don’t we assume he was making a scientific statement about earth’s movement relative to other celestial bodies? That is a literal reading by the method you describe. Handmaiden, you appear to be saying that when Christ speaks something into existence, there is no time delay in it being carried out. All miracles must be instant, if I read you right. You can think of no exceptions to this rule? So anything that happens over time is not by His command? Please clarify. Also, your lumping everyone together as skeptic or atheist who does not accept rigid literalism, is quite unfair. What we object to is the false choice given by traditional American fundamentalism: That we either use a rigid, literalistic reading of every passage of scripture, ignoring intent, style and context, or we reject scripture all together. Militant atheists have joined them in forcing this choice on us. The media gives these two groups most of the press and air time, and the results have been tragic. This artificial crisis in the church continues to produce a combination of both brittle dogmatism and fragile faith. Martin C | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1207 Registered: 7-2004 |
Deb, The problem is that the account of Gen 2 disagrees with Gen 1. In Gen 2 God forms man before there were plants (see verses 5-8). God formed man from the ground and then God made a garden and placed man in the garden. In Gen 1 the plants are made 3 days before man. Man is created into an already formed world. In Gen 2 creation starts with man. In Gen 1 creation ends with man. In Gen 1, man and woman are created together, in Gen 2 man is created, then each of the animials is created and named by man, and only then is women created, after man is placed into a sleep. How long would it take to name all of the animals of the world? I don't mean these questions as an attack on anyone's belief about creation. I am simply trying to point out how someone with a very conservative view of Scripture can see the need for allowing room for some diversity of understanding regarding creation. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1208 Registered: 7-2004 |
I would like to throw out another question that bats around inside my brain on this subject: On what basis do we conclude that there was no death of any type (plant or animal) before sin? | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 247 Registered: 9-2006 |
Ric_b, have you read the previous part of this same thread linked above, "Archive through September 05, 2011." Starting with my post #238 on September 3rd, the discussion about death before sin continued. Martin C | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1209 Registered: 7-2004 |
Martin, I see you posing the question in the midst of others. I don't see anyone addressing it head-on. We can provide Scripture that the death of man didn't come about until after sin. But all that I see regarding animals and plants is a great deal of speculation and assumption. Personally I can live with the answer that we simply don't know. But I don't like hearing a repeated mantra of "there was no death of any type before sin" without someone providing the Scirpture to back up the idea. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12961 Registered: 12-2003  |
You're right, Rick...it's not clearly stated. I'm finding, as the years pass, that more and more I have to admit that everything God says in His word is true...even if I can't reconcile everything according to my perspective. Nevertheless, everything is true. The more I can hold these "imponderables" lightly, knowing that God cannot lie, that it is not up to me to "prove" the Bible is true—that's the Holy Spirit's job—and to be open to understand the "sketchy" parts of the Bible differently as time goes on...the more sense it makes. Being content not to have to explain it and tie up all the loose ends and make all the pieces "fit" into the giant puzzle whether they really slide together naturally or not makes the entire thing more "believable" and miraculous. I cannot explain this...but the two accounts of Genesis 1 and 2, for example—which really are different and cannot be equated without making assumptions not stated in the text—do not unnerve me. I know that in some way, they do reconcile—it's just not revealed fully to us yet. Martin's point about the sun, moon, and movement of the earth is right on. Because the writers of the Bible spoke poetically (or not, as the case may be) of the sun moving or standing still does not make the words of Scripture untrue or unreliable. Scripture is 100% true and believable, but I have to surrender my need to be able to explain it logically in all points. I have to be content to let the secret things belong to God--and to trust Him. It ALL holds together in Jesus (Col 1:17). And I think you all know me well enough by now to know I'm not saying, as a Christian friend of ours said to us several years ago, "If it's not in the Bible, we shouldn't even ask the questions!" (And he said that in relation to one of the Mars missions when a rover was dispatched to send pictures and to retrieve samples...sigh.) I'm just sayin' that we can't be too set in our opinions so that we miss reality and truth. We can't force the reliable words of Scripture to "describe" things they are not actually saying. We have to be open to knowing what is real and true and to trusting God and His word whether or not we understand all the ways things work. Colleen | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 248 Registered: 9-2006 |
"Being content not to have to explain it and tie up all the loose ends and make all the pieces 'fit' into the giant puzzle whether they really slide together naturally or not makes the entire thing more 'believable' and miraculous." Colleen, very well said. The Bible does not present a neat and tidy picture of the world that will please historians, scientists--or theologians. I don't personally have a detailed picture of how the universe or the earth came into being. While it left out details I wish were there, the Bible is still all true, that I know by His grace. God is not obligated by our need to have all our questions and doubts answered on demand, according to human logic. As Adventists believing in the great controversy, we used to say that all our questions (and Satan's) must be fully answered before God's name can be vindicated. Nonsense. Only after we submit to His identity and authority will He show Himself to us more fully. Martin C | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2120 Registered: 7-2007 |
Yes, excellent post, Handmaiden!  I don't know why sometimes Christians feel the need to "agree" with scientists. My dad is an agnostic and a scientist. That doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. He refuses to believe anything he can't test out - i.e. put in a test tube. That's typical for scientists. They don't believe there's such a thing as anything they can't see with their own eyes or test scientifically. They don't believe there's such a thing as miracles. They START with the presupposition that there is no God, so they have to figure out some other way by which life, etc. came about. Therefore they come up with things such as the theroy of evolution. I can't believe Christians buy into that! Isn't our very basic belifs BASED on miracles??? Jesus came into the world born from a virgin [miracle], and died and rose [miracle] from the dead! It really frustrates me when people believe they have to compromise with scientists theories anyway! Isn't there enough evidence in the Bible and in our own lives, to show that the Bible is true? For example, the hundreds of prophecies that foretold Jesus first coming that were exactly fulfilled, are amazingly mindboggling! I've experienced evidence in my own life since coming out of Adventism (and during the process of coming out of Adventism) to show that Christianity is true! Have any of you seen the documentary film; "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"? In it, Ben Stein examines why professors and scientists who believe in "Intelligent Design" are expelled from the scientific community for questioning evolution and how Darwin's theory of evolution has gaping holes in it. When one looks around and sees how the devil has nearly the whole world deceived into various "theories;" not only evolution, but all the false religions - Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam, SDAism, etc., why is it surprising that the devil would keep secular scientists captive to false theories as well? | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1313 Registered: 5-2007 |
Not to sound nerdy , though am I am one I lean strongly towards taking scripture literally when it comes to specifics like creation week. Consider , 50 years ago, we were still using type writers and addressographs plates to process invoicing. Took a whole room of people to do it. Now, 1 person takes several peoples places and can accomplish 10 fold of work in 1/4th the time. Then let's consider God's infinite capability. I expect God could create worlds fully formed in an instant, much less a week. I cannot explain fossil remains, and I certainly question the interpretive science theorys. We make educated deductions based upon constants that are assumed. We can't prove anything either way. There is such intricate detail in nature and design beyond comprhension, I have no doubt but that we were designed and created. Nature testifys of God. My conclusion, the gap theory may be plausible, "but that is not what God says" Colleen said: But His word will not lead us astray from reality. It will only confirm and expand it. Most excellent ! | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2121 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; I'm glad you believe God! (The flood explains fossils.) Rick, here are a few verses that say that death came through sin: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—" Romans 5:12 "For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now." Romans 8:22 Another thing to consider is, if animals ate each other before sin, why does the Bible say that the wolf will live with the lamb and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, after sin? (Isaiah 11:6) Another negative thing about doubting a literal six day creation - or at least doubting it "out loud" here on the forum; is when SDAs comes to browse through the discussion part of the forum to see what the "formers" are up to - and read those doubts - they would automatically conclude that since we've left the "Sabbath," we're starting to throw away the Bible. That would turn a questioning Adventist off and turn them even more firmly to the SDA religion and away from the New Covenant Jesus brought in. I know it would have for me! | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1316 Registered: 5-2007 |
Asurprise, I decided to dispense with pretense about other SDA lurkers. If we are honest and real, we may hope to work through real questions and rubber hitting the road reality. If we amend and edit, it will end up less than genuine. EGW counseled not to speak of doubts and discouragement because though we may recover they may not. Even though it had an air of wisdom to it, and I do know that people died in the dessert because of grumbling, if we don't work through these things, we remain religously correct and stagnated in confusion. Not a license to be reckless or arrogant, But willing to express from the soul. Perhaps somehwere between what you said and what I am saying there is a balance in how we should express our thoughts. I know I get carried away. When you hurt bad enough, decorum goes out the window. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 630 Registered: 7-2005 |
Asurprise, are the ID guys heroes or villains? In the above paragraph you present them as heroes who are not compromising with science in contrast with some of us here on the forum who are compromising with science for believing in an old earth. One of the ID guys is William Dembski. Apparently Dembski who co-authored The Design of Life is a hero. But precisely the endorsement of Dembski's book The End of Christianity in which he presents an argument for animal death before fall and operates under the assumption of an old earth was castigated as a compromise with science and unfaithfulness to the biblical record. I'm confused. Which is it? Is Dembski a hero or a villain? If people are for ID and not for an young earth, why are they criticized by both scientists and Christians? Why are they criticized by scientists if they are starting with the presupposition that there is no God? Is it not precisely because they don't embrace this presupposition and didn't embraced the naturalistic presupposition with which science works? Where is the compromise? Those who embrace old earth and animal death before the fall doesn't do it because they embrace the naturalistic presuppositions of science. Gabriel | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1213 Registered: 7-2004 |
Asurprise, All of the verses that you quote are about the death of man comng about with sin. They do nothing to address, one way or the other, the question of animals and plants. My questions are raised as questions to focus people on what the Bible says rather than what we have always thought about the Bible. Encouraging people to be faithful to all of what Scripture says and to avoid adding our assumptions into Scripture is not a message I think we should be afraid of saying to anyone. I have nothing to hide in my beliefs, or in my questions, from SDAs. My beliefs come from what Scripture says, my questions come from what Scripture says (and from respecting where Scripture is silent). | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1612 Registered: 7-2003  |
Were Copernicus and Galileo comprising the Scripture when they disagreed with some religious types about whether or not the sun and all else orbited the earth? Or, were they simply observing what the Creator had revealed about Himself in creation and then saying to some of the religious types, "Hey, you might be reading something into Scripture wasn't intended due to long held presuppositions."? I think if there's something we can learn from history, it's that where the Bible does not speak loudly, we really need to be a little tentative, exercise a whole lot of love and grace, and allow for some liberty for different opinions. | ||
| Deb Registered user Username: Deb Post Number: 11 Registered: 3-2008 |
Here are some excellent articles that give some food for thought on some of the questions that have been brought up in our discussion here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/08/22/false-start-the-controversy-over-adam-and-eve-heats-up/ http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/08/31/adam-and-eve-clarifying-again-what-is-at-stake/ http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/02/sbjt_111_wise.pdf http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/07/27/feedback-gods-chronology http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/gospel-young-earth |
