Dinosaurs

[ohio jones]

I'm sure scientists don't know everything. I'm also not convinced that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are meant to be a scientific explanation of creation. I think they are mostly about who God is, his reign over the universe he created, who humans are, and how we lost out on what God had originally planned for us. If it was meant to be taken that literally, I don't understand how the sequence of events works.

• Genesis 1 says that God created animals (1st part of day 6), then Adam and Eve (2d part of day 6).
• Genesis 2 says that God created Adam, then animals, then Eve.

Looks to me like because you don't have a logical explanation about how the sequence of events work, you doubt the narrative. Maybe if someone could explain scientifically and logically how the two fit together it would help restore your faith in the Word.....

Some translations (ESV and NIV among them) say in 2:19 that God "had formed" the animals and then brought them to the man. I don't know enough about Hebrew to determine if that's exegesis or eisegesis, but it does resolve the appearance of sequential conflict for those who make a big deal of that. I tend to think God's days might have been something like mine, jumping back and forth between one partially finished project and the next, except that he got everything done at the end of the day.

[Bootstrap]

Looks to me like because you don't have a logical explanation about how the sequence of events work, you doubt the narrative. Maybe if someone could explain scientifically and logically how the two fit together it would help restore your faith in the Word.....

I don't think so. In fact, I think of it the other way around. Because Genesis is not trying to do the same things that a 20th- or 21st-century text would do in Western culture, we can try to force-fit it into the kinds of model we are used to as modern Americans.

The Bible is older and stranger than that. It came from very different cultures at very different times. I have no lack of faith in the Word, quite the opposite. But I like to read it on its own terms, without forcing it to be a different kind of book than the one God gave us. God could have given us a systematic theology, a code of ethics, a model legal code, and a scientific explanation of origins, complete with an extensive index and copious footnotes, answering all kinds of questions. It could have had several chapters on the problem of pain and why God allows suffering. He did not give us that book. He gave us another kind of book, and he know what he was doing when he did so.

Any debate of creation versus evolution that focuses on Genesis is about something entirely different than the purpose for which God wrote the book.

[Bootstrap]

Some translations (ESV and NIV among them) say in 2:19 that God "had formed" the animals and then brought them to the man. I don't know enough about Hebrew to determine if that's exegesis or eisegesis, but it does resolve the appearance of sequential conflict for those who make a big deal of that. I tend to think God's days might have been something like mine, jumping back and forth between one partially finished project and the next, except that he got everything done at the end of the day.

I am only a beginner in Hebrew, but I suspect this article accurately points out problems with the NIV translation:

Translating Genesis 2:19

I'll look into this, though.

[QuietObserver]

I will be interesting in seeing your review. My view is that if God created a mature, functional universe from nothing, it could very well be a universe that appears to be millions of years old based on observable scientific processes. For example Adam being created as an adult male, or trees being created already having dozens of rings, or distant stars already visible. I don't view this as God playing tricks on us. But it does seem to make some of the search to scientifically prove a young earth rather pointless.

I think this is the best case for YEC.

The "search to scientifically prove a young earth" has done more harm than good. I would lean away from YEC because of the rhetoric of people like Ken Ham.

[Fidelio]

I will be interesting in seeing your review. My view is that if God created a mature, functional universe from nothing, it could very well be a universe that appears to be millions of years old based on observable scientific processes. For example Adam being created as an adult male, or trees being created already having dozens of rings, or distant stars already visible. I don't view this as God playing tricks on us. But it does seem to make some of the search to scientifically prove a young earth rather pointless.

I think this is the best case for YEC.

The "search to scientifically prove a young earth" has done more harm than good. I would lean away from YEC because of the rhetoric of people like Ken Ham.

I don't see it as proving a young earth, but instead to show that a young earth is scientifically plausible, and frequently it shows creation is more plausible than evolution. We YOCs do not need to prove a young earth as the Bible already tells us so.

[RZehr]

Amen!

[Bootstrap]

I don't see it as proving a young earth, but instead to show that a young earth is scientifically plausible, and frequently it shows creation is more plausible than evolution. We YOCs do not need to prove a young earth as the Bible already tells us so.

I have no problem with the way you see this, but I do want to share how I see this.

I don't think evolution disproves creation. If evolution is true, then it is still miraculous and God is still the creator. To a Christian, evolution is just one theory of how God created all manner of living things.

I don't think the Bible actually tells us how old the earth is. I don't think adding up the genealogies is a reliable way to do that. This article is helpful:

ARE THE BIBLICAL GENEALOGIES HELPFUL IN ESTABLISHING THE AGE OF MAN?

To me, evolution is a threat to some theories of how to understand these accounts in the Bible, but I don't think it is a threat to the Bible.

Maybe my experiences are different from yours, but I rarely run into someone who says they cannot trust God or the Bible because of evolution. When I do, it's usually an excuse from someone who has a closed heart for other reasons. The one time I encountered that in an evangelistic setting, I asked the man if this was really the thing that was standing between him and God. He admitted it wasn't. I encouraged him to put this question in God's hands and not let it be a barrier. I prefer that approach.