Creation vs. Evolution

[scubafool]

You're still avoiding the questions.

You think so? Which question? The one in here that I bolded?

Secondly, if slavery was wrong wouldn't Jesus have said something like "Thou shalt not own slaves", or otherwise left some indication, however vague, that it is wrong. He didn't - instead he left at least 3 clear statements saying how slaves should act. Granted, it wasn’t ringing support, but it most certainly was not condemnation.

If that's it, No. I wouldn't necessarily think so. Jesus said to Love God with all your heart and to Love you neighbor as yourself. He said that to see the kingdom of God that you needed to reborn in the spirit....and so on. I don't think He missed saying anything that He needed to say. I don't think that He missed doing anything that He needed to do. He defeated death and sin for us allowing us to appear blamless before our Father in Heaven and enter the kingdom of God. I think He did an absolutely perfect job.

Does that answer your question?

So if telling us the path to eternal life is the only purpose of the Bible, why is it so long? Why does it go into great lengths describing our creation, our ancestry, our history, how slaves should act, etc, if the only purpose of the Bible is to tell us how to we might be saved from our sins?

The very omission of a condemnation of slavery while talking about how slaves should deport themselves, seems like tacit approval of it.

 

[AXL72]

Why question the bible? Never ruin a good story with the truth

 

[MikeFerrara]

So if telling us the path to eternal life is the only purpose of the Bible, why is it so long? Why does it go into great lengths describing our creation, our ancestry, our history, how slaves should act, etc, if the only purpose of the Bible is to tell us how to we might be saved from our sins?

The very omission of a condemnation of slavery while talking about how slaves should deport themselves, seems like tacit approval of it.

I don't think I said that was the only purpose of the Bible. The Bible certainly contains teachings that are applicable to all aspects of our lives.

I don't know how to try to get this accross in a few sentances but some of the principles that we find in the Bible are concerned with learning to be content where we are and learning to serve God where we are.

Paul often refers to himself as a Bond servant of Christ. Read the New Testament verses that apply to slaves and see what it is telling them. Put it in context. We are all in service to someone and many of us will live out our lives on earth in rather lowly positions. I might be "free" but I have all these bills that must be paid or I'll be on the street. If my boss says "jump" I need to jump. I can leave that job but I'll just have some one else telling me to jump and my situation hasn't really changed. No matter what I do, I have many authorities over me and some are certainly less than fair or just. What should my attitude be? How do I honor and glorify God WERE I AM? What is it that's really important? The Bible tells us an awful lot about the importance of service, giving, loving God and other people and on and on, but don't pass by the emphasis on service too fast. Can we really put that all together and come to the conclusion that the Bible is telling us that we should enslave others? If my focus is on Gods work and Gods kingdom, being a slave might just turn into a real oportunity. When Paul was in prison chained to a jailer he wasn't worried about getting free. He was thankful to God for arranging it so the jailer couldn't get away from him. LOL

 

[Warthaug]

I agree that from a technical, scientific view, using just the plain word 'Evolution' is incorrect. I am not a scientist and tend to use general terms that are easily understandable for everyone. In a general way, is macroevolution the evolving of one species into a different one such as sea animals evolving into land animals? I'm asking because I may have a misunderstanding.

The concept of macro vs microevolution is largely a creationist "creation", and not widely used within the scientific community. Occasionally you will see those terms used, but rarely in a technical form. After all, where do you draw the line between micro and macro?

Just as an example, on my desk I have a copy of a new article recently published in Science about evolution (Vol 314, pp119-121). In my opinion, this paper will probably become a classical paper on evolution, as it appears to resolve one of the last big questions about evolution (it shows a role for, and the extent of, something called "punctuated equilibrium" - something beyond the scope of this post). Although this paper talks extensively about events which would fall into both the micro and macro realms, it never once uses either terms.

For scientists, evolution is evolution. The scale (i.e. macro vs micro) is merely a function of time and selection. After all, any microevolution, left to continue long enough, eventually becomes macro.

Dude! (can I say Dude on this thread?) I wasn't even born in the 50s! Hit the fast forward button, ugh, Elvis, ugly cars, terrible movies..shudder..

Neither was I. I just tend to collect books. The original reason I bought the book (this was when I was a kid), is that I was flipping through it at a garage sale and came across a chapter which told you how to make gun power...

One of our Biology books from college has over 300 pages of evolutionary theory, including the beginning of chemical evolution and the supposed fact that ultimately all life formed much like the Urey experiment. I quote..."dryopithecines died out, evidence suggests one group was ancestral to orangutans while another gave rise to chimps, gorillas,...and Humans!??

Starr Tagart..circa 1987..page-646-left side.

That pretty much says it in a nutshell. Humans have a common ancestor with apes... and to think that I braved the attic to quote this.

It's too bad it did such a poor job of separating abiogenesis from evolution. The texts I have from undergrad have them as separate chapters.

BTW, how is evolution defined in that books glossery?

Do you mean Macro or Micro evolution?

I don't differentiate between the two - as I said above - the concept of micro vs macro-evolution is largely a creationist creation, and not really a part of modern evolutionary theory.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

<Snip>

The line between Spinoza's God and atheism seems very thin...

I think it depends on your definition of god. Some people would only accept that as a caring, humanoid begin who watches us from above. If that's what I have to believe god is, then I guess I am an atheist. As are the members of a fairly large range of religions. Spinoza's god most certainly falls away from that definition, but many would still consider his god a god...

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

You are still avoiding the question.

You think so? Which question? The one in here that I bolded?

Both. When asked to explain the conflict between GenI and GenII you quoted two passages which do not even begin to address the issue (or for that matter, could be seen to directly refer to either chapters of Genesis specifically).

And the original question in regards to slavery was, in essence, "why do biblical literalists not demand that slavery be reintroduced". We've deviated far from that question, but I think I provided ample references from the bible demonstrating that:

a) The "rightness" of slavery is supported by both the old and new testament.
b) The slavery which existed, and is described in the bible, is "true" slavery not just indentured servitude.

Incidentally, the very chapters I quoted in regards to slavery were used before the civil war as an excuse for slavery, and in those days the institution of slavery was vigorously defended by churches we now label as "literalists". Surely God's will hasn't changed that much over the last couple of centuries?

And neither of those questions have been answered. Neither, for that matter, (to come back to the original question which lead to the two above questions), was the question answered as to why the biblical literalist movement is so selective in the parts they take literally...

Bryan

 

[sandjeep]

Warthaug said

Firstly, you've dodged the question. Genesis I and Genesis II directly contradict each other on the order and timing of creation (more below). Secondly, the sections you quote in no way shape or form address the issue - Jesus does not refer to which chapter he is referring to (19:4 could be either Genesis I or II - god creates the universe in both versions, 19:5 is clear a reference to Genesis II)

I really don't see an issue with this as it's not two creation accounts. This is an argument concerning Genesis, so I did some further research and found quite a history. Starting with Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) His argument was much the same as you have posted, but later in life changed his outlook and agreed that both verses were in harmony given the language and writing styles.

I have found others who make it more clear and I repost.

It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism.

As for the timing and order (which you ignored):

Genesis I:

Heaven & Earth -> Light -> Water & Air -> Land -> Plants -> Sun, moon & stars -> Sea and air animal life -> Land animal life -> Man.

Genesis II:

Heaven, earth, water, and all inanimate objects (no order given) -> Man -> all life.

Again from my research, I repost for clarity purposes and to also note that this was a literary style of the time and does NOT indicate different authors (H2Andy).

The technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance.

So basically, What MikeF and I said was correct to begin with. I suppose we could continue to beat this around if you wish, however Genesis 2:4 uses the same style and no one bats an eye.

 

[Warthaug]

I really don't see an issue with this as it's not two creation accounts. This is an argument concerning Genesis, so I did some further research and found quite a history. Starting with Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) His argument was much the same as you have posted, but later in life changed his outlook and agreed that both verses were in harmony given the language and writing styles.

I have found others who make it more clear and I repost.

It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism.

I would most strongly disagree with those answers - just read the chapters! Man comes last in GenI, but is in the middle in GenII. The order of creation is clearly outlined in both GenI and GenII, and the two accounts clearly give a different order.

I would also point out that the above answers also involve a fair degree of interpretation. Not that it wrong, mind you, but interpretation is the antithesis of biblical literalism.

The technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance.

But those accounts still disagree. To point it out again, GenI has man created LAST, after the plants and animals. GenII has man created FIRST (in regards to life), prior to ALL OTHER LIFE.

Far cry from just being an extension. The clearly contradict. If you take the accounts of being allegorical then it doesn't matter, but biblical literalism holds that the bible is literal - not allegorical.

So basically, What MikeF and I said was correct to begin with. I suppose we could continue to beat this around if you wish, however Genesis 2:4 uses the same style and no one bats an eye.

I've never argued about the authorship; nor do I think it matters if one, two, or 2000 authors wrote those sections. Regardless, it still comes back to the issue of the clear conflict of the two accounts, and how, given that conflict, literal biblical-ists (is that even a proper term?) could support 6-day creationism...

Bryan

 

[sandjeep]

I'm sorry but that is over the top. The cars of the 50's were not ugly! ok, some were but there, maybe. There were some good movies...and sad to say most of the really great actors are gone now so there isn't much sense is even seeing the new movies. While I'm not a big fan of the early Elvis stuff, he eventually did some that I really liked and, of course, Chuck Berry was great!

Sir,
I am deeply sorry for my sweeping generalization of the period known as the 50s and hope I have not offended. After reviewing the related data available, I have rediscovered a few movies, which I enjoy seeing. (High Noon) (On the Beach), some types of music of that era that I can tolerate for short periods, and even one car that is cool. However, the automobile reached the height of its evolution with the introduction of the Muscle Car.
signed--A child of the 60s


P.S Agree, the really great actors are gone.

 

[sandjeep]

Warthaug,

If you really consider it a 2nd creation account then you must consider Gen 2:4 a third account as well.

However something has occurred to me that may be at issue.

You said

I would also point out that the above answers also involve a fair degree of interpretation. Not that it wrong, mind you, but interpretation is the antithesis of biblical literalism.

Ok, I see the issue now. You define biblical literalism as reading exactly and I don't. Naturally, allegory, parable and metaphor can be found in the Bible. I define myself as someone who believes that everything in the Bible is true i.e. Flood, Virgin birth, Jesus rising on the third day, ect. I interpret what I'm reading as literal first unless the context and language indicates otherwise.

This is something we all do as humans, otherwise our language would resemble the speech patterns of Spock.

I literally believe the Bible is true.