Evolution

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.

Do you believe in evolution

 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Evolution

Post by Wayne in Maine »

RZehr wrote:
Dan Z wrote: I've often felt the same thing Wayne - the Genesis 1 account is a beautifully poetic and unambiguous declaration of God's hand in forming and filling all of creation. I believe this declaration with all my heart!

However, the obvious use of figurative language, the differing details in Gen 2, the limited scientific understanding of the account's original audience, the relative nature of time, the vastness of the universe, the witness of the stars and rocks and ice, the overwhelming and multi-disciplined scientific evidence of great age, all affirm to me what the Genesis account is (a foundational declaration of God's centrality as Creator and Sustainer of the universe) ...and what it isn't (a scientific treatise on the particulars of the formation of time, matter, and life).

Faith and science are not nearly as conflicted as some would make them out to be.

Frankly, the whole young-earth industry seems to be exploiting a manufactured controversy...robbing the church of tremendous energy and resources, dividing communities of faith, cutting young people off from the wonder of scientific inquiry, imposing faulty litmus tests of orthodoxy, and benefiting no one - with the exception of a few textbook vendors, some seminar speakers, and one or two "museum" owners. :)
I have heard this Genesis 1 is poetic argument before.

I have a friend that lives in Jerusalem, has a Ph.D. in Jewish grammar, specifically with comparisons to the Arabic language which help us understand the ancient Hebrew text.

I asked him for clarification if the writer of Genesis was writing in poetic form because this is a common thread that comes up on Genesis 1 discussions.
This is his answer:
"I am indeed saying that the writer of Genesis is writing what he sees as a historical account, even if he uses occasional rhetorical flourishes to enrich the language. There is no indication in the text that the reader is supposed to view it as allegorical or fantasy."
How does you friend account for the description of earth as a flat surface with a solid dome (above which is water) onto which are fixed the sun moon and stars? Is he a flat-earther?
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7024
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Evolution

Post by RZehr »

I don’t know. Give me some passages and I’m willing to ask him.
He is not a flat earther. And I don’t know what he believes the age of the earth is. I only and specifically asked about Genesis 1 writing.
0 x
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Evolution

Post by Wayne in Maine »

RZehr wrote:I don’t know. Give me some passages and I’m willing to ask him.
He is not a flat earther. And I don’t know what he believes the age of the earth is. I only and specifically asked about Genesis 1 writing.
Is "raqia" a literal surface?
0 x
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Evolution

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
RZehr wrote:I don’t know. Give me some passages and I’m willing to ask him.
He is not a flat earther. And I don’t know what he believes the age of the earth is. I only and specifically asked about Genesis 1 writing.
Is "raqia" a literal surface?
More to the point, do you believe the sun moon and stars move about on a solid dome above the earth?
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7024
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Evolution

Post by RZehr »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
RZehr wrote:I don’t know. Give me some passages and I’m willing to ask him.
He is not a flat earther. And I don’t know what he believes the age of the earth is. I only and specifically asked about Genesis 1 writing.
Is "raqia" a literal surface?
More to the point, do you believe the sun moon and stars move about on a solid dome above the earth?
I don’t know what raqia means. Never heard of it before.
I believe the earth moves around the sun. I don’t believe there is a dome or anything like the picture you posted.
Do you?
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Post by lesterb »

Wayne in Maine wrote: How does you friend account for the description of earth as a flat surface with a solid dome (above which is water) onto which are fixed the sun moon and stars? Is he a flat-earther?
:?:
I don't think I've ever read that into Genesis 1 or 2. The dome is normally considered to have been a water canopy that collapsed at the time of the flood. At least it was in the earlier writings of Henry Morris and his friends. I haven't followed the official creation literature in recent years very much.

It is interesting though to see how acceptable theistic evolution has become in Anabaptist circles in the last decade. It seems that orthodoxy is being stretched further all the time.
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7024
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Evolution

Post by RZehr »

What do you old earth believers do with Biblical lineages and lifespans of people given in the bible?
0 x
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: Evolution

Post by Dan Z »

RZehr wrote:I have heard this Genesis 1 is poetic argument before.

I have a friend that lives in Jerusalem, has a Ph.D. in Jewish grammar, specifically with comparisons to the Arabic language which help us understand the ancient Hebrew text.

I asked him for clarification if the writer of Genesis was writing in poetic form because this is a common thread that comes up on Genesis 1 discussions.
This is his answer:
"I am indeed saying that the writer of Genesis is writing what he sees as a historical account, even if he uses occasional rhetorical flourishes to enrich the language. There is no indication in the text that the reader is supposed to view it as allegorical or fantasy."
Instead of "poetry" the phrase some use to describe this approach in Gen. 1 is "Literary Framework." It has characteristics of both poetry and historical narrative - Dr. Andrew Wilson of Think Theology summarizes it this way:
  • "In my view, Genesis 1:1-2:3 is exalted prose – that is, it is neither pure narrative nor pure poetry, but tells a story using a number of poetic features and a clear literary framework, and was not intended by its author to be taken as a literal, chronological guide to what happened – but Genesis 2:4 onwards is historical narrative, which although it contains metaphors, anthropomorphisms and so on, nonetheless is intended to be a historical account of what took place when and where."
Googling the topic brings up lots of perspectives - including, of course, numerous pages from Answers In Genesis and Creation.org. There seem to be honest scholarly perspectives that arrive at different places. Who is most credible probably depend on what you believe constitutes credibility - for me, this includes whether they are coming at the topic openly, or whether they have "a dog in the hunt" beforehand. After years of consideration, I find the Literary Framework explanation of Genesis 1 both elegant and inspirational - but I'm not ready to go to battle over it (we see through a glass darkly). :) Your Hebrew scholar friend sounds like a credible source by the way, and is certainly worth paying attention to.

In any case, I think the late RC Sproul (a "literalist”) offers some sound advice:
  • "Is the earth a few thousand years old or billions of years old (as scientists today insist)? Although the Bible clearly says that the world was created in six days, it gives no date for the beginning of that work. It would be a mistake to become embroiled in too much controversy about the date of creation."
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Evolution

Post by silentreader »

RZehr wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote: Is "raqia" a literal surface?
More to the point, do you believe the sun moon and stars move about on a solid dome above the earth?
I don’t know what raqia means. Never heard of it before.
I believe the earth moves around the sun. I don’t believe there is a dome or anything like the picture you posted.
Do you?
raqiya is the Hebrew word which the KJV translates as 'firmament'. Firmament probably comes from the Latin Vulgate, firmamentum. In newer translations the word 'expanse' is used to translate raqiya. This suggests cosmic space rather than a cosmic dome, or the act of spreading out rather than the material itself. This is in harmony with probably 10-15 Scripture passages saying that God 'stretched out the heavens'.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Post by MattY »

Answers in Genesis has some convoluted and possibly dubious ideas about time dilation and maybe other possible explanations for light from outer space; I am not a scientist, so I'm not an authority, but given the track record of previous ideas about this, and the established (observational) science about the speed of light and the distance of the stars, I'm skeptical. And to those who doubt those scientific facts/observations: if there was any chance the stars were not so far away or that light actually travels (present tense) much faster than it is believed, AiG would surely have jumped on those possibilities, right? But no: creationist scientists accept those scientific findings. It doesn't seem like a good idea for me, a non-scientist, to be incredulous about the science then.

So maybe AiG is onto something with the time dilation idea. But maybe not. Then what?

I can't accept the idea that light from distant stars was already created in transit. I think those who accept that idea probably inadvertently think of the stars as being fixed, stationary objects always giving the same light (so that light created in transit is just like the actual light the stars are giving off now). But stars have a history - they get brighter, they get smaller, they change color, they explode into supernovas, etc. If we are not seeing light from actual stars, then what we are seeing is simply fiction. "When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained..." Am I considering a fiction, or am I considering actual stars, which God actually created? It's one thing to have a mature creation: trees with rings, a fully grown Adam and Eve, adult animals. But I'm quite confident that God didn't create a fictitious backstory by planting fossils in the ground of animals that never existed. They actually existed, and they fit into the Genesis account (the Flood explains most of the fossil record). The same applies to starlight - we've just had a harder time explaining how it fits.

I'm willing to leave room for old-earth creationism or even theistic evolution in faith - I can't see how it fits the Biblical teachings, but it wouldn't destroy my belief in the authority of Scripture if I found out that it happened somehow. But I think to take the Biblical record seriously, including not only the Genesis account itself, but the fact that Jesus takes the Old Testament accounts of Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah, Moses, Jonah, etc. as straightforward history rather than allegory, we have to believe in 6 literal days in Genesis 1. Also there's the fact that creation was described as "very good", and that death entered the world through sin - which conflicts with the millions of years of death and decay, according to evolution and OEC, that the world would have had to experience before Mitochondrial Eve or whatever came on the scene.

The solution I favor is to look at verses 1 and 2 as preceding the first day chronologically. Verse 1 is not a summary of the rest of the chapter, it's the very first thing God did. He created the heavens - that's not just empty space or the space-time continuum we call the universe, it's the sun, moon, and stars. The earth was initially covered by water, barren and empty - as described in verse 2 - and covered by a cloud of thick darkness - Job 38:9. The Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters. When God said, "Let there be light", many years could have passed already - enough for the light of distant stars to reach earth. But from the vantage point of earth, there was light for the first time on Day 1. I would suggest that God cleared the clouds enough to allow light for the first time, but not enough to allow the heavenly bodies to be visible. He did that on Day 4, allowing the sun, moon, and stars to be seen. From the vantage point of earth, the lights were set in the firmament (expanse, sky, atmosphere) for the first time. Note that God says their purpose is for signs and seasons - again, He is describing what an observer on earth would use them for. But they are not literally in the firmament - they are in space, of course. But we see them up in the firmament. Just as Psalm 19 describes the sun going around the earth, from our perspective.

The 6 days of creation would thus be not about creating the universe ex nihilo - though certainly God had done that previously - but about Him working on the earth's biosphere to create a suitable place for mankind to live.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
Post Reply