Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

Two questions for you about this - I've asked this of several others on your "side", and they've all failed to answer either one. I'm just curious how you can be a biblical literalist when:

1) The bible gives two conflicting accounts of creation - Genesis I, the whole 6 days "and then there was light" account, and Genesis II, the story of Adam, where both the order of creation and its timing are completely different.

I've always been curious about that. And why is it the literalists chose Genesis I, and not II, to take literally.

2) Why don't biblical literalists demand other things which the bible says we should have. My favorite example is slavery. Throughout the old testament guidelines are set out for the acquisition and treatment of slaves (Exodus 21:2-21, Deuteronomy 15:16-17, among others). Jesus, via 1 Corinthians 7:21, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, and 1 Peter 2:18, restates that slavery is OK and sets up some basic rules about it.

So why don't biblical literalists promote slavery? Why aren’t they out on the street demanding their biblical right to slaves? Why do they get so mad when I ask if they’re willing to sell me their children (which is their biblically-guaranteed right, BTW). After all, the bible is pretty explicit that slavery is A-OK. Why is it that these sections are not taken literally?

Bryan

As I read it, part of Genesis 2 is an elaboration on Genesis 1. I don't see a conflict.

The issue of slavery was touched on earlier in the thread. You should by all means do some research of your own but in short... The Exodus and Deuteronomy references you give are speaking to Hebrews about the treatment of Hebrew servants/slaves. The answer to this popular critisism lies in what a Hebrew "slave" was in Hebrew society. These were not captured people who were forced into slavery.

The New Testament is probably a bit different. As I understand it, the Greeks and the Romans had real slaves. Notice that most, if not all, of the New Testament instructions on slavery are addressed to the slave. I think all the New Testament references that you listed fall into that catagory. These scriptures weren't condoning slavery but instructing the Christian slave in how to conduct themselves before their (probably Roman) master. The slaves had no choice but to be slaves and I don't think that the masters were often in the audience.

 

[H2Andy]

As I read it, part of Genesis 2 is an elaboration on Genesis 1. I don't see a conflict.

hhmmm... ok .....

Genesis 1 ends on the sixth day, with both male and female humans created on the same day.

At the beginning of Genesis 2, God rests on the seventh day. then we get an entirely new narrative coming in, where God creates everything in a day (not six) and, on the same day, makes man out of dust on the same day he created the heavens and the earth. however, unlike the first narrative, he makes no female human until much later, out of Adam's rib.

if it is an elaboration on the earlier story, it contradicts it in several ways.

doesn't sound like an elaboration to me. sounds like a complete creation tradition, and possibly the original one, with Genesis 1 added at the beginning some time later from a different source.

The answer to this popular critisism lies in what a Hebrew "slave" was in Hebrew society. These were not captured people who were forced into slavery.

they were local people who were forced into slavery?

somehow that makes it better? they're still slaves. it's still an inmoral institution.

which the writers of the Bible don't seem to have too much problem accepting.

let's change the words to "child pornography:"

child pornographers, be kind to your child actors. child actors, be subject to the child pornographers that exploit you. suffer quietly, for the end is coming soon.

???????

 

[BIGSAGE136]

Spark....fire ...blaze...soot...fuel...repeat.

 

[photohikedive]

still curious about the missing years in the life, of the most important character in the bible

 

[Warthaug]

warthaug,

I’ll answer your last post first quickly as I have some things to do tonight.

Mat 19:4
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mat 19:5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh

The above is from Matthew Chapter 19 and as you can see, Jesus is talking about Creation in verse 4 (Overview) and the point in verse 5 (Specific) was Adam and Eve .

Jesus sees no contradiction in the so-called 2 accounts since He quotes from both. Its really the same account. I don’t really see the issue, as Jesus can not be wrong or lie.

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)

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.

Genesis II is rather specific about man predating plants:
"before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;"

And is also pretty specific about Adam predating all animals:
"Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name."

You'll notice it also conflicts with when birds are made (Genesis I clearly puts this before land animals).

Plus they don't really agree on time. 6 days for Genesis I (well, in a few languages. Other languages, including the original language of the old testament, disagree). Indeterminate time for Genesis II, but given that Adam had to name all of hundreds of thousands (unless he named individual large species, where the number would by millions, or include bacteria/archea, where the number then climbs to billions of species), there is no way that task was done in 6 days...

The word slavery means different things to different people and cultures. Was the slavery forced as in American history? Were they more indentured servants? Did they ever get the day off?

I think you need to go back and read those sections. Many of the slaves taken in the old testament were spoils of war. For example:

Deuteronomy 20-21 refer extensively to enslavement, notably forcing women of nations you conquer to be your wife.

Joshua 9:3-27 the entirety of the Gibeonites are enslaved - for the hideous crime of tricking the Israelites into not massacring them.

Judges 1:27-27, Canaanites are enslaved, after loosing a war.

Judges 21:15-25, the girls of Shiloh are abducted and forced to marry the Israelites.

Not exactly indentured servitude by any stretch of the imagination.

As for the new testament, well if you know anything about Roman history you know many of those slaves were not simply "indentured servants" paying off debts. They were life-long slaves, spoils of war and what not.

If they ran away were they chased down and chained or automatically freed instead? Were they working off a debt and were all slaves (servants) freed after 6 years?

Only male Israelites slaves had this option. Female Israelites and non-Israelites were life-long servants. Only exception is you were allowed to give Israelite daughters back if they weren’t satisfactory.

To tell you the truth, if you owed me money and could not pay, then your going to work off the debt somehow. Would I call you my slave and would you consider yourself a slave coming from our western culture?

But the bible says I could sell you my child instead of doing it myself. You may also want to read up on indentured servants in the modern world (they still exist, example being rural India). You can cut hairs all you want, but its a form of human slavery by even the most warped of definitions.

Question, where is your avitar picture from?

Our local diving hole, Lake Minnewanka. Pretty cool (pun intended) for a mountain lake - its the result of a damming, so there is an old dam, bridge pilings, foundation and various artifacts accessible from shore. An entire hotel and support buildings are in the middle of the lake (need a boat), and other neat things have been found in other locations (rangers cabin, for example). All of the pics in my photo album are from that lake, in the area around the dam-site.

http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=1029

Sexy dude is me.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

As I read it, part of Genesis 2 is an elaboration on Genesis 1. I don't see a conflict.

Except they don't agree. Not only does God create the universe in both (so ones not a continuation of the other, but two accounts ofthe same thing), but the order of creation is drastically different - all life before man in GenI, all life after (and named by) man in GenII, order life is created in also varies. I wrote more about this in a recent post.

The issue of slavery was touched on earlier in the thread. You should by all means do some research of your own but in short... The Exodus and Deuteronomy references you give are speaking to Hebrews about the treatment of Hebrew servants/slaves. The answer to this popular critisism lies in what a Hebrew "slave" was in Hebrew society. These were not captured people who were forced into slavery.

Problem is, there is a lot more references to slavery then those two chapters. This includes references to taking slaves of other peoples. Included among these is enslaving people for trying to avoid genocide, and taking women from other peoples as "wives". See my post to sandjeep for the references & details.

The New Testament is probably a bit different. As I understand it, the Greeks and the Romans had real slaves. Notice that most, if not all, of the New Testament instructions on slavery are addressed to the slave. I think all the New Testament references that you listed fall into that catagory. These scriptures weren't condoning slavery but instructing the Christian slave in how to conduct themselves before their (probably Roman) master. The slaves had no choice but to be slaves and I don't think that the masters were often in the audience.

Roman history would disagree with this - the ownership of slavery in Rome was not limited to anyone - any free person, including Christians, could own slaves. 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.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Einstein was essentially an atheist. He made, during his long life, a few comments that have been construed as religious, but which really were made in the context of affirming and emphasizing the fact that he did not believe in life after death, or in the existence of a God that was in any way concerned about the affairs of humans. He sometimes made comments about the order and structure of the cosmos as being the only deity he could imagine, but again, these remarks were usually made while refuting any notion of the supernatural.

I would disagree. Although Einstein did not support any organized religion, and in many cases openly opposed aspects of some organized religions, he apparently believed in God, and made several comments in that regards:

"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand"

"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

"But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Certainly not the teachings of any organized religion, but defiantly an acknowledgment that something greater then ourselves exists.

Bryan

 

[agilis]

I think what you quote from Einstein agrees with what I wrote. Actually, I first posted in this amazing string by writing that any intellegence behind the universe, any uncaused cause/prime mover, was unknowable to human minds. Rapturous amazement at the complexty and infinity of natural laws is pretty far from any sort of religious sentiment. I think all of us except the crudest dullards feels this rapture, contemplating a seashell, or a solar system.

Not only do I agree that there are things greater than ourselves, I think that there is really nothing that humans can claim to be greater than. It is a human-centered, earth- centered view that is at the heart of conventional religion. We are simple cosmic dust, of no significance except to ourselves. We create Gods from our own inability to comprehend more than shadows, Einstein's "utterly insignificant reflections" filtered through primitive organic senses. Our vaunted powers of abstract thinking and analysis gives us a tiny flawed perspective on things beyond our understanding, and our most advanced thinkers are merely descriptive, in terms that are simple metaphors. Shadows on the wall of a cave.

 

[H2Andy]

We are simple cosmic dust, of no significance except to ourselves. We create Gods from our own inability to comprehend more than shadows, Einstein's "utterly insignificant reflections" filtered through primitive organic senses. Our vaunted powers of abstract thinking and analysis gives us a tiny flawed perspective on things beyond our understanding, and our most advanced thinkers are merely descriptive, in terms that are simple metaphors. Shadows on the wall of a cave.

wow ... that's excellent stuff

and still, we managed to figure out the atom, and our place (biologically speaking) on Earth, and we've come up with hot showers, cold beer, and scuba

not too shabby for hairless apes

in a way, we are the universe itself. we are the sentient part of the universe. we are the universe trying to figure itself out.

 

[rawls]

Aliens came down and flirted with monkeys, and things simply got out of control....