1. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    10 Jan '08 06:37
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    [b]If God did science would be hard pressed to find it,

    No, there would either be anomolies in the way that rocks are arranged, the way things are. Things that couldn't be explained by current theory. Of course there are none. For that to be true, and for the world to have not formed in the way we believe it to, your God would have to be a lia ...[text shortened]... ts and miners. Anyone, really, who is interested, or has a stake, in the way the earth works.[/b]
    Things are explained by theories, period! If they appeared another
    way than they do now, they would be explained by other theories,
    because that is what we do, try to explain things.
    Kelly
  2. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    10 Jan '08 06:39
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    [b]If God did science would be hard pressed to find it,

    No, there would either be anomolies in the way that rocks are arranged, the way things are. Things that couldn't be explained by current theory. Of course there are none. For that to be true, and for the world to have not formed in the way we believe it to, your God would have to be a lia ...[text shortened]... ts and miners. Anyone, really, who is interested, or has a stake, in the way the earth works.[/b]
    I wasn't addressing how it works, but if God created it.
    Kelly
  3. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    10 Jan '08 12:22
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    I've been wrong before, josephw. I'll be wrong again. I tend to voice whatever view I have in no uncertain terms and grapple with it until I'm convinced otherwise. For instance, I used to not believe in justification by faith, but now I am vehemently a proponent of justification by faith - a change of mind which occurred in these forums. Similarly, I ...[text shortened]... mince words regarding the six day creation; it means what it says, and says what it means.
    "I tend to voice whatever view I have in no uncertain terms and grapple with it until I'm convinced otherwise."

    Oddly enough I'm the same way.

    Pr 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

    It goes both ways.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    867
    11 Jan '08 03:07
    Originally posted by josephw

    God doesn't need to veil what he does. He tells it like it is.
    Yes, and of course Genesis 2 was written directly by God.

    Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

    I find your use of this quote to be quite ironic, since you seem awfully sure of your own beliefs about the Creation. I suggest reading the quote again, but this time in the knowledge that it is addressed also to you.


    Oh, and you're welcome for proving your prediction true. 🙂
  5. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    11 Jan '08 03:29
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Define them and tell me how they do.
    Kelly
    6 day creationism is the belief that the world was created in six days by an all powerful deity. It is an extreme version of saltation.

    Evolutionary theory explains the gradual increase in complexity through time, and current diversity of life on earth within a naturalistic context.

    Gradualism and saltation are polar extremes. Creationism assumes a deity, evolution does not.
  6. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    11 Jan '08 03:31
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Things are explained by theories, period! If they appeared another
    way than they do now, they would be explained by other theories,
    because that is what we do, try to explain things.
    Kelly
    Well, only if it made sense. There are patterns of rock formation which could be conceived, which could not be explained by any rational theory. These are possibles, but not actuals. There is no reason for them to not exist with an omnipotent God.
  7. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    11 Jan '08 04:061 edit
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    I've been wrong before, josephw. I'll be wrong again. I tend to voice whatever view I have in no uncertain terms and grapple with it until I'm convinced otherwise. For instance, I used to not believe in justification by faith, but now I am vehemently a proponent of justification by faith - a change of mind which occurred in these forums. Similarly, I mince words regarding the six day creation; it means what it says, and says what it means.
    Whether or not the language is cast in terms of actual days (“evening and morning” ) is one thing; to assume that the language is factually descriptive rather than strictly poetic/metaphorical is another.

    It also says “God said.” Did God actually speak? Did he articulate actual sounds of real Hebrew words?

    Is the sky literally a raqia (a dome/firmament/expanse) that separates water from water?

    Which parts of this story are to be taken as poetic/metaphorical; which parts as literal/descriptive; and which parts as intended to be literal/descriptive, but in terms of a primitive cosmology that no longer holds, and, so to speak, thereby excused?

    Quite frankly, if it diminishes God’s power or stature (or the magnificence of the message) to take “days” as metaphorical, then taking any of the rest of it as less than accurately literal/descriptive does the same. Cherry-picking the literal from the metaphorical is not helpful. If one is committed to actual days, they ought to also be committed to actual speech and actual waters above the sky-dome. If one is not committed to those, there is no need to be committed to literal days.

    Poetic speech is not mincing words. It certainly does not undermine the thrust of your opening post.
  8. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    11 Jan '08 05:341 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Whether or not the language is cast in terms of actual days (“evening and morning” ) is one thing; to assume that the language is factually descriptive rather than strictly poetic/metaphorical is another.

    It also says “God said.” Did God actually speak? Did he articulate actual sounds of real Hebrew words?

    Is the sky literally a raqia (a dome ...[text shortened]... c speech is not mincing words. It certainly does not undermine the thrust of your opening post.
    Agreed.

    The difficulty for me (and many others) is that the universe which surrounds us is obviously much, much older than 6-12,000 years old. The closest galaxy to us, the Andromeda galaxy, is 2.5 million light years away. The proposals of young-earth creationists about how the universe only seems to be 13.4 billion-years-old are intriguing but inconclusive (for instance, the notion that the speed of light has been slowing down since the big bang, quantized red-shifts, etc.).

    Within the book of Genesis there is much left unsaid regarding God's creative activities. Instead, what is revealed has directly to do with our special relationship to the Creator, rather than details meant merely to satisfy those who would seek to pry, i.e., God as Progenitor is underscored, the significance of rest on the seventh day is underscored, the fallen state of man, God's plan for salvation, etc.

    In my research I came across interesting quotes regarding this from Theophilus and Origen which encapsulate my thinking:

    "[Genesis] contains matters of profounder significance than the mere historical narrative appears to indicate. Furthermore, it contains very many things that are to be spiritually understood. When discussing profound and mystical subjects, it uses literal language as a type of veil." ~ Origen (c. 225)

    "No man can give a sufficient explanation of the six days' work, nor can he describe all of its parts. He could not do this even if he had ten thousand tongues." ~ Theophilus (c. 180)
  9. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    11 Jan '08 07:31
    Here is an oft-overlooked tidbit from Genesis chapter 5. If you take the names of Adam and his descendants, from Seth to Noah, and place them in order, you will find an interesting hidden message:

    Adam = "Man"
    Seth = "Appointed"
    Enosh = "Mortal"
    Kenan = "Sorrow"
    Mahalalel = "The Blessed God"
    Jared = "Shall Come Down"
    Enoch = "Teaching"
    Methuselah = "His Death Shall Bring"
    Lamech = "The Despairing"
    Noah = "Comfort"

    "Man appointed mortal sorrow. The Blessed God shall come down, teaching. His death shall bring the despairing, comfort."

    Wow.

    This is what Origen must be referring to when he says, "[Genesis] contains matters of profounder significance than the mere historical narrative appears to indicate.... When discussing profound and mystical subjects, it uses literal language as a type of veil."

    What the apparent historical narrative is rooted in is the hidden element which lends to the creation story its power, while veiling the sacred in a mystery too great to overcome.

    WDYT?
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    11 Jan '08 07:50
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Well, only if it made sense. There are patterns of rock formation which could be conceived, which could not be explained by any rational theory. These are possibles, but not actuals. There is no reason for them to not exist with an omnipotent God.
    You know what the universe should look like with an omnipotent God,
    or are you just an expert on what patterns of rock formations should
    look like and an omnipotent God?
    Kelly
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    11 Jan '08 07:55
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    6 day creationism is the belief that the world was created in six days by an all powerful deity. It is an extreme version of saltation.

    Evolutionary theory explains the gradual increase in complexity through time, and current diversity of life on earth within a naturalistic context.

    Gradualism and saltation are polar extremes. Creationism assumes a deity, evolution does not.
    Well I guess we disagree about the way you use the term evolution.

    I agree one of the creation stories has it in 6 days, the one I believe
    in too. That does not mean however that change didn't start occuring
    after creation either, creation only addresses the start of life and its
    processes not the processes iteself. Which brings us to where we
    disagree, evolution is change yes, but how long and when it started
    is another subject that is not addressed by evolution all by itself you
    are looking for something else.
    Kelly
  12. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    11 Jan '08 21:20
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Here is an oft-overlooked tidbit from Genesis chapter 5. If you take the names of Adam and his descendants, from Seth to Noah, and place them in order, you will find an interesting hidden message:

    Adam = "Man"
    Seth = "Appointed"
    Enosh = "Mortal"
    Kenan = "Sorrow"
    Mahalalel = "The Blessed God"
    Jared = "Shall Come Down"
    Enoch = "Teaching"
    Methuse ...[text shortened]... r, while veiling the sacred in a mystery too great to overcome.

    WDYT?
    Okay, I’m not even supposed to be here—but my self-discipline is wanting. So if I just jump in now and then as I see something, you’ll understand—and if I don’t as well. Responding to both of your last posts—

    (1) I really didn’t think we’d be in disagreement here, just so you know. My comments were more of an expansion, not a criticism.

    (2) Origen: Yep, I think you got his approach pegged. Basically it is a Christian variation of Jewish midrash; Origen used a three-level approach to exegesis, whereas the rabbis use a four-fold approach (if memory serves, so did Tertullian—don’t quote me on that one, however). You can see similar stuff in Gregory of Nyssa’s The Life of Moses.

    A possible difference has to do with the fact that the rabbis do not take any midrash as necessarily definitive; multiple exegetical possibilities are admitted, and argument is a means of exploring them without throwing out all but the “right one”. I follow that line, too.

    With that said: well done; really well done.

    (3) I’m so glad that somebody on here is willing to explore these early, post-apostolic Christian thinkers. Origen, for example: although some of his views were subsequently condemned as unorthodox, he is still considered one of the foremost exegetes.
  13. Joined
    29 Dec '07
    Moves
    4184
    12 Jan '08 13:31
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Here is an oft-overlooked tidbit from Genesis chapter 5. If you take the names of Adam and his descendants, from Seth to Noah, and place them in order, you will find an interesting hidden message:

    Adam = "Man"
    Seth = "Appointed"
    Enosh = "Mortal"
    Kenan = "Sorrow"
    Mahalalel = "The Blessed God"
    Jared = "Shall Come Down"
    Enoch = "Teaching"
    Methuse ...[text shortened]... r, while veiling the sacred in a mystery too great to overcome.

    WDYT?
    Surely you could read into this what you like.

    "Man, appointed mortal. Sorrow the blessed god shall come down teaching. His death shall bring the despairing, comfort."

    I'm sure the 'death' of the idea of god would bring many of us despairing non-believers comfort.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    12 Jan '08 13:39
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Quite frankly, if it diminishes God’s power or stature (or the magnificence of the message) to take “days” as metaphorical, then taking any of the rest of it as less than accurately literal/descriptive does the same. Cherry-picking the literal from the metaphorical is not helpful. If one is committed to actual days, they ought to also be committed to actual s ...[text shortened]... c speech is not mincing words. It certainly does not undermine the thrust of your opening post.[/b]
    What is meant then by Genesis 2:4 which says, "These are the GENERATIONS of heaven and earth when they were created?" I think there is ample evidence within the text to suggest we are not talking literal days here.
  15. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    13 Jan '08 06:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    What is meant then by Genesis 2:4 which says, "These are the GENERATIONS of heaven and earth when they were created?" I think there is ample evidence within the text to suggest we are not talking literal days here.
    Also, Hebrews 4:3-5 suggests that on the seventh day God rested from ALL His works. That we are ever able to enter into His rest (those who believe) proves that God's seventh day of rest is perpetual. Meaning, on the seventh day ALL of God's works were finished -- even the work of raising Christ from the dead. Seen in this light, the creation story suggests a greater depth of meaning than what is immediately apparent.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree