Skip to comments.Common Sense Christian Part One: Creationism versus Evolution
Posted on 05/26/2009 6:18:06 PM PDT by RightSideNews
Promoting Creationism as Revealed in the Book of Genesis, in Six 24-Hour Days Refuting Darwinian Evolution, Theistic Evolution, Gap and Age-Day Theories, and Progressive Creationism by Greene Hollowell and Evan Moore Virginia Christian Alliance Introduction
Creationism and evolution have been in opposition ever since the latter's introduction by Charles Darwin in 1858. Their conflicting views come as no surprise since creationism is derived from Christianity, while evolution is claimed to be derived from science. Christianity revolves around the concept of faith in Jesus Christ, and science revolves around the pursuit of evidence in nature.
In light of today's growing focus on science, it is essential to address the issue. Through this treatise, we hope to show that God is the true creator of all life on earth and that evolution is a biased and illogical explanation for the creation and sustaining of life. We begin in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. While Moses is credited as the literal author of Genesis, it was inspired by God. For this reason it is often called the "Word of God." In fact, 2nd Timothy 3:16 states, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." The scripture is perfect in its descriptions and explanations. It says precisely what God intended. Therefore, a literal interpretation of the Bible is in order.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...
But man has a history of being flawed in his interpretation and understanding. Especially when trying to make a science text out of the Bible.
Which translation would qualify as the only true literal interpretation of the Bible?
Check out the First and Second point in the article. Both of these could readily be applied to Special Creation. That is, Special Creation happened in the past and no one alive today has physically witnessed Special Creation occurring.
I’m a Christian, but the hypocrisy in this article is laughable and does not serve the cause well.
I honestly think some who promote ‘Creation Science’ (ie Young Earth) are out to harm Christianity by making them look like fools. Have you ever seen some of the museums with statues of medieval knights playing with dinosaurs.
The fact is that the authors of the time didn’t even have the vocabulary to describe basic the basic biological and geological sciences we understand now.
If people treated, as literal as they do their time descriptions, the concept of DNA or atoms would be as ‘evil’ as evolution because the Bible doesn’t explicitly state it- it says we are made from ‘dust’.
You also didn’t include the changes in translation from its original language to English.
Or cultural nuances of language. Imagine four thousand years from now, if someone read that some guy named “art_rocks” jumped in his Jaguar and went to the arena to watch the Giants and Lions battle. The meaning then may be much different than what we understand now simply because of cultural changes in terminology.
Eighty years ago, everyone wanted to be gay, and in Britain we’d go outside and enjoy a fag!
Fifty years ago being bad would get you locked up. Twenty five years ago, being bad was about as good as you can get. Now it’s back to being thrown in jail...
It is true. Its a conspiracy to discredit religion.
Does someone promoting the Resurrection or virgin birth also look like a fool since science can easily prove both of these impossible and thus false?
The difference is between a first hand witness account, on a specific instant that was a ‘miracle’ (thus outside the laws of nature) versus an account transcribed long after some assume (Moses who wrote the first five books lived thousands of years after it is claimed by some, the events took place). ie. Christ was written as a first hand witnessed account, versus Genesis was written as an interpretation of past events, much different in literary discussion.
There is also far less ambiguity in the language. If you study the original Hebrew, you’ll see that the Genesis account is very poetic, using terms that may mean ‘young earth’ but could also, just as honestly, be a indeterminate amount of time and very different from this modern cartoon like description that some promote.
Actually, if you study Hebrew you will realize that Genesis 1 is anything but poetry. It does not fit Hebrew poetry at all.
Since you believe you have it all figured out - will that be your defense when you meet your Creator? Do you feel so comfortable w/’your reasoning’ that you will risk your eternity on it?
You must think that Psalms isn’t poetic then as Psalm 90 has a close language correlation to Genesis 1. Even the differences in accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 correlate with other verses in Bible where the author opined poetically about God, versus a line per line historical description.
I have absolutely no problem with that. God in no way says anywhere in the Bible that you must trust XX translation or interpretation to the Genesis account as to be saved. I would much rather stand before Him, having searched Him out in ALL of his creation versus being in the position of some of these Young Earther’s driving people away from the church out of kindergarten level interpretations.
The Heavens and Earth declare the Glory of God, the God I know didn’t create a universe who tricks people into not believing in Him. I see in the more understanding we have in science, the more God is revealed.
Check any reputable Hebrew scholar. They will tell you that Genesis 1 and 2 are not poetry...absolutely not.
Kind of a circular reasoning going there quoting from the ‘answers in Genesis’ (link broken) as proof of the language style. That is like saying, I am making a claim, and as proof, I cite myself.
I would suggest grabbing something from a linguistic scholarship that isn’t related to the question at hand.
Some good resources include:
Scribal culture and the making of the Hebrew Bible By K. van der Toorn
Language and Imagery in the Old Testament by John C. Gibson
Torah Studies: Discourses by Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Onkelos on the Torah: Understanding the Bible Text, the Book of Genesis by Israel Drazin
None of these are sources that are skewed to have a stake in this debate, they are just language studies, some from a closer Torah translation versus the ones we often use.
I don’t put my ‘faith in Science’, as the Bible says “the Heavens declare the glory of God”, Science is just a way to look at the Heavens just like one uses a Concordance to read the Bible. It is a tool, not a faith. Too many people think science is some sort of competing faith, it isn’t. It is more like reading with glasses, the glasses don’t compete with the book, they just make what you are reading clearer.
This certainly does not prove my point that we will use science when it is convenient to us and we will not when it is not (i.e. science proves the earth was not created in six days vs. the Resurrection of Christ was a miracle) but, i do believe that it show that the writer of Luke did believe that Adam was the first human as described in Genesis and therefore indicates that at least Luke (and there are many other examples) believe in some more literal translation than you seem to.
23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of MethuSelah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God
..and just to make one more point before I drop it, but Adam could easily translate in the same language as “mankind”, “man”, or even a city in Jordan. The root is from the Hebrew for “Red” of all things (example, Exd 25:5 when describing dying of a rams skin red is the same word used in Genesis for Adam). A man in the past, when translating, chose that this meant a literal name. Look in Strong’s at all the uses of #119 and you’ll be amazed at how many different translations a single Hebrew word is given. This doesn’t mean the Bible is wrong, but it does make you look at human’s interpenetration differently.. and it does make you critical of man’s view, especially when man says what God means.
If you believe man is flawed in what he studies in science, how much less of a chance is he flawed in telling you what God means?
I’m not saying buy what I am saying hook line and sinker or have faith in me, just the opposite- test it, test everything, especially those who claim to speak for God. You’ll be amazed how much God reveals Himself when you stop listening to what people say you should believe, and what you discover when you put those assumptions aside and start digging yourself.
You left out the demonically inspired shift in meaning of “red” and “blue”. How many 21st century conservatives will understand the phrase, “Better dead than red?”