Over the past several weeks in youth group we have been studying Noah and the different things that he dealt with in the process of helping God start mankind over again. In one of the lessons I shared that in life we have to be willing to do whatever God asks us to do. The hard thing about that, is that we have to know what it is that He wants us to do. We do this by praying and reading His word along with many other things. As I was explaining how I do my Bible reading, there seemed to be some interest in joining with me. Last night after youth group I had some teens come and say that they wanted to read through the Bible with me. First of all I am glad they these young adults are willing to dig deeper into God's word. Second of all I am honored that they would ask me to hold them accountable for reading a chapter a night.
I asked them where they wanted to start and they said, "Duh, Genesis." I said, "OK." So last night I read Genesis 1 for about the thousandth time. It never ceases to amaze me that God reveals something new to me every time I re-read scripture.
I never noticed that after each "day" it says "and there was evening, and there was morning-the____ day. This got me thinking about creation. I know that we come from different backgrounds, different education levels and different levels of Biblical interest. I want to know what kind of creation you believe in.
17 comments:
I am a believer in theistic evolution - that is, that evolution was a God directed process that led to the current state.
We've talked about this before, so I won't go into too much detail...I remain convinced that it would be an act of cruelty to create the world in such a way as to lead people away from God.
More importantly, though, if you look at the Genesis account, you have to keep a couple of things in mind. First, it is a modified copy of a babylonian creation story. And second, whoever wrote Genesis was not present at the actual creation.
That's enough for now...I'll wait for the uber-literalists now.
So, do you not think that if it didn't happen the way that it is presented to us through a "modified copy of a Babylonian creation story" and if that story is different than the way that it actually happened, then that in itself is "leading us away from God."
Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!
I think that God created the universe via the big bang. I have a hard time believing in evolution the way it is taught in most schools. I also don't believe that when it says there were 6 days and on the 7th God rested that these are literal days. There is too much hard evidence that dinosaurs existed before man did for me to believe that there were really only 6 24 hour days.
I agree with Kevin on the too much evidence point...
To answer your question:
Just because the parables didn't actually happen, does that in any way lessen their value as Scripture? Or Job - which may have been an early "play" of some sort - does the possibility that certain parts of Scripture are not literal automatically mean they lead astray? I don't think so.
What is the point of the creation narrative in Genesis? Is it to talk about brush strokes or about the artist? Is it to talk about notes on a page or about the composer? Is it to talk about the method of creation or the creator?
I think we get way too caught up in the idea that Genesis somehow communicates exactly how God created, when it doesn't really matter at all. Really, does it change God's nature if God "created" through the Big Bang or through evolution or through some other method? The point of the whole story - particularly in its context in jewish Scriptures - is to emphasize the who of creation.
I will never say that God "could not" have created in a literal seven days. I don't personally think that is the best understanding of creation, but I am more and more convinced that it is irrelevant.
Why don't we fight about our understanding of "Give everything to the poor" or "stand up for the widowed, the immigrant, and the orphan?"
My comment is not about a parable actually happening or not. It is more about God telling us how something happened and then it actually happening another way. How can we follow a God that lies to us about creation?
I am not a big fan of labeling things in the Bible as "thats just a parable, it didn't really happen that way" because somewhere along the line someone is going to say (and its already been said) "Christ didn't actually die for us, its just a parable that shows how much He loves us." If we go there then how can we believe anything that the Bible says. It's all one big parable.
I don't think that God "lied" about creation - you have to remember that the book of Genesis was written thousands of years ago. Even if God had "wanted" to write about primordial ooze and thermodynamics and recombinant DNA, the people with whom he was communicating wouldn't have understood a word of it.
But you missed my point altogether, I think...the intent of the Genesis creation account was never to communicate HOW creation happened. Instead, it's intent was to serve as a reminder to the people of Israel that it was Yahweh God who created. That's how they would have understood it.
And I Quote : "Just because the parables didn't actually happen, does that in any way lessen their value as Scripture? Or Job - which may have been an early "play" of some sort - does the possibility that certain parts of Scripture are not literal automatically mean they lead astray? I don't think so."
You can quote me all you want, but you're still not getting the point...
Even in asking those questions, the whole point is that the INTENT of the parables was not to convey factual events but to illustrate a principle. The factuality of the descriptions has nothing to do with it.
I'll say it as clearly as possible - the factuality of a seven day creation has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the beginning chapters of Genesis. Nothing at all. The point of those chapters is to get people to understand that Yahweh God created.
Keith, it would be preposterous to think that because the parables didn't actually happen that it would lessen their value. The entire reason they ARE valuable is because they aren't true. That is how they are used to make the connection between the daily life and spiritual life.
My point is not that they are not valuable. My point is that we have to be very careful in saying: "I don't believe that actually happened, it is just a parable for us to learn from."
And I guess my point is that at least one of the criterion for deciding whether a particular story is best understood literally is to ask the following question:
Is the actual, physical happening of this story absolutely necessary for it to maintain its impact and for the larger gospel narrative to remain consistent?
The resurrection should be taken literally, then, because the message of the gospel falls apart with any other view. The same is true with the stories of Jesus' birth.
Ask that question about the Genesis creation account: Is a literal seven day creation absolutely necessary to retain the consistency of the gospel message? Or, to put it another way, if it could be conclusively proven that evolution is factually, scientifically true, would that make the gospel message any less powerful?
I think that your argument about the point not being "how" but the "who" is correct. However, you are saying this to a Christian with a degree in religion. What would you say to the non-believing scientist who demands to know how by nature:)? EMILY.....not that you are a non-believer:)
I would answer honestly. I would simply tell them that I don't know. I honestly believe that most scientists are open to someone who is willing to admit that there are things we don't know. After all, what drives a group of scientists to build the LHC - the world's largest particle collider? They want to learn more about things they don't know.
When I was a physics major at Purdue, I ran into people whose attitude wasn't so much anti-God as it was anti-people who claim to know with certainty that which cannot be known with certainty.
The reality is that Christians will never ever be able to scientifically prove the Bible is true. My opinion is that we need to stop trying. It sounds silly, but there is a reason it is called faith.
Did you ever meet Ben Linger? If you have, you should definitely ask him these questions, because he is without a doubt one person who is immersed in the world of science and at the same time a man of great faith.
I'll leave off with this: Science and faith are not opposites, but neither are they twins.
Wow, a lot has transpired on this page since I read it this morning. I can't tell you how much I've missed hearing you guys arguing over the Bible. It makes me smile. See! :-)
Keith: Great questions and topics of debate these last few weeks! The creation issue is one of my favorites. There is so much you can talk, argue, and debate about creation. I used to have these discussions with friends at school. I think what it finally comes down to is this: I believe God created and I love science. I believe God created science as a way to reveal his awesomeness to us.
Joe: I completely agree with you about the "how" vs "who" argument. I believe the Bible points to God as Creator but not literally how he created. For one thing, whoever wrote Genesis (Moses?) wasn't actually there to see it, as someone already mentioned. But I believe that God created the universe in such a way so that it points to him. I think that science and the Bible can co-exist peacefully so long as the church doesn't take a firm stance at one point in time of science discovery. Remember when the church was convinced that the earth was flat?
Has anyone seen Keith? You know the guy in a Burpo shirt and flip flops that blogs about things like bbq and football. I don't know who this new philosophical, intellectual guy is, but I miss Burpo :(
I think Keith should answer his own questions :) I am not getting in on this discussion because I am way too opinionated but I love following it and hearing what everyone thinks.
Anyway, Keith???
the epsteens - I post these questions to discuss topics that I am thinking about. I LOVE hearing other peoples opinions, even if they are very opinionated opinions. I don't want this to be a place where people are afraid to write because of what they believe. This is a place where I want everyone to be comfortable to write. So, I will post my answer after you do:) See you later!
Post a Comment