click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
I Don’t Believe a Snake Talked but I Do Believe Aliens Seeded Our Planet
by C Michael PattonMarch 23rd, 2009
85 Comments
I spend a lot of my time reading books that are very difficult to read. In my library I have dozens of books from atheistic authors, most of them former Christians who left the faith. Their leaving is tagged with a variety of reasons, but they primarily have to do with some sort of “awakening” from the “intellectual slumber” as they describe it.
I also spend much time going through atheistic websites and blogs, reading people’s thoughts. I rarely interact. I simply go there to learn.
What I see is a lot of bitterness and anger. This evidences itself in much ridicule. I find the ridicule very interesting and typical of the way people think when they get into this box. (Yes, for the most part, it is a box.) They are upset because, according to them, they spent much of their life believing a lie parallel to that of Santa Clause. Now they have been set free from irrationality and now have the freedom to think (that is why they refer to themselves as “free thinkers”). They seek to help others to become free thinkers.
The other day I read a thread on one of these atheistic/Christian recovery websites which had about sixty or seventy posts which simply poked fun at Christian beliefs. Topping the list was the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam, a snake talking, Jonah’s adventure in the belly of a whale, Balaam’s donkey speaking, and the whole story of special creation.
After continuing this mockery for quite some time one atheist made an astonishingly wise and unexpected observation which turned the conversation in a very interesting way. It is this turn that caused me to write this short blog.
He said (paraphrase): “Guys, I certainly concur that God is not real and that the stories of the Bible are mythology. I also concur that Christians are naive to believe in such nonsense. But I do often ask myself where did everything come from? What started it all? How is it that we are all here?”
Bypassing the simplicity of the question dealing with ultimate ontological origins (i.e. the origin of the “stuff” of the universe), the commentators acknowledge the difficulty of the question and went straight to a discussion of human origins.
However, they were first quick to point out that the difficulty of the question does not justify or legitimize the insertion of an “ultimate creator” which explains all things (often referred to as the “God of the Gaps” approach).
“What is your best guess then?” the other asked.
At this point people became more timid and reserved. It almost seemed to quiet the bashing party down. Yet there were some brave souls who took a shot. Can you hear throats clearing on a blog? Well you could here as they prepared to respond.
What was their answer to the origin of all things? What was their non-naive, rational, scientific, this-does-not-look-anything-like-Santa-and-you-can-teach-your-children answer? Aliens. Yes, aliens seeded our planet five million years ago.
Let us just set aside the fact that this does not solve anything since we have to answer where the aliens came from. Let us also set aside the presumption that these people may not be atheists but alien worshipers (alitheists?). Let us also not refer to this as the “Alien of the Gaps” answer (at least not right now). There is something more fundamental that I would like to ask:
Is the belief that aliens seeded our planet five billion years ago more rational, scientific, and believable than the answer that a self-existent God created all that there out of nothing (ex nihilo)?
Folks, I am not making this up. The idea that aliens seeded the earth is becoming a valid option among atheists and free-thinkers. It is also starting to find its way into Hollywood.
Not only was this option perfectly acceptable to all the atheists on this blog (remember, the ones who were making fun of the story of Adam and Eve), but Richard Dawkins has publicly stated that believes that Alien implantation is an “intriguing possibility.”
Listen to this. I just finished the last episode of Battlestar Galactica (sniff, sniff). This series was filled with the God question which it never really answered. Except . . . that at the very end, the voyagers of the Battlestar fleet made earth their new home (their home planet that was destroyed). These voyagers are shown to be the explanation of where the human race came from—an implantation of the union between robotic Cylons and humans who were both alien.
Another interesting example was the new Nicolas Cage movie, Knowing, that was released this weekend. (Warning: Spoiler). Filled with much suspense, we find out in the end that aliens saved humanity by seeding another planet with a male and a female human (not to mention the animals).
My question for you is this: Can one legitimately belittle any detail of the biblical creation story on the grounds of intellectual integrity and replace it with a belief that aliens seeded our planet and remain in good standing rationally? How much worse is a snake talking than a creature from another planet talking?
How does “I don’t believe that a snake talked but I do believe that aliens seeded our planet sit with you?”
Similar Posts:
- Why doesn’t God heal amputees?
- Atheism: The Godless Revolution That Never Happened
- Is the New Atheism Really Affecting People’s Belief in God?
- The Moral Indignation of Richard Dawkins
- From "There Is No God" to "There Is a God" : Tracking Antony Flew’s Conversion
85 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
The flip-side also seems to work:
“Can one legitimately belittle any detail of the [aliens-seeded-our-planet] story on the grounds of intellectual integrity and replace it with a belief [in the biblical creation story] and remain in good standing rationally? How much worse is [a creature from another planet talking] than [a snake talking]?
Like or Dislike:
0
“How does “I don’t believe that a snake talked but I do believe that aliens seeded our planet sit with you?”
It sits as totally irrational and intellectually dishonest to make such an assertion.
Like or Dislike:
0
“How does “I don’t believe that a snake talked but I do believe that aliens seeded our planet sit with you?”
One good, hearty laugh deserves another.
Like or Dislike:
0
Panspermia and exogenesis seem more scientifically credible because you can use big words to talk about them, and guys like Carl Sagan gave their lives to efforts like SETI. Extraterrestrial life is beyond our common experience, but talking snakes and donkeys are the things of fables and objects of common human experience, so I can see why the intelligentsia mock them.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow another BSG fan!!! One of the best series that was on television. I will join you in the “sniff, sniff”. I certainly found the ending interesting, especially considering the whole “God’s plan” thing. Very weird because everything I’ve read says that Ron Moore is an atheist (though I believe the creator of the original BSG was Mormon).
As to aliens seeding our world I think the biggest problem is the one you mentioned – where did the aliens come from??? I mean the whole philosophy of naturalism is based on the idea that all that is can be explained by natural causes. Believing the theory that aliens seeded Earth may explain (naturally) how life came to be on Earth, but it doesn’t explain how life came to be on the planet the aliens came from. To believe this theory is not to eliminate the problem of explaining how things came to be, it just pushes it back a few billion years.
Like or Dislike:
0
No Dennis, it’s because true Legitimate Science involves an initial step in examining a theory, prior to any examination of evidence & testing:
1.) Philosophically classify the theory into “natural” or “supernatural”.
2.) If “supernatural”, stop here. Don’t bother examining evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, what can we do to make them change their mind? We need a spin off or something…but I can’t make it without Adama.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum, My point is its easier to believe stuff totally outside our common experience (aliens) than something in our experience which is out of the ordinary (talking snakes). Everyone knows snakes don’t talk because we have lots of snakes laying around and none of them are fluent in human language. That is why talking snakes are unbelievable, but since relatively few (credible) people claim to have seen aliens, it is easier to beg the question by claiming aliens know about origins, if only we could find an alien to ask about it.
Aside: Science as been RE-defined as being naturalistic. The materialist bias to science has only taken hold since Darwin.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis,
I got it. I wasn’t actually disagreeing, just faux-rationalizing like a faux-skeptic.
Like or Dislike:
0
Has anyone here ever researched the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6?
NIV Gen 6:4 “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days–and afterwards–when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heros of old, men of renown.”
These atheist have to put there beliefs for the beginning of life somewhere and this whole alien hypothesis is not something that a bunch of atheist fabricated. We need to remember who our enemy is and that he is very crafty and is now getting desperate as the times draw nearer to the end.
The Bible says the these “Nephilim” were here in “those days– and afterwards.” What if the Nephilim are Satan’s tool to deceive people into thinking aliens were here first? Like 1 Pe 5:8 says “Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.” There is no doubt that Satan is going to do everything within his power to mislead and deceive as many people as possible before he is defeated by God. 2Th 2:9 “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders.”
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Nice picture of a grey….lol.
The Bible says a donkey talked as well…and get this…I had a cockatiel that talked to me. Now if someone has never heard a bird talk would they believe it? We may have not seen this particular snake but it does not mean it does talk.
Alien seeding theology is nothing new, I heard people say it a long time ago, and I have met people who claim to have been actual half-alien half human. There are a lot of pagan and new age religions who do believe this. So if atheists are falling for it means they are not really atheists. They are just anti-Judeo-Christian.
And the alien seeding idea in Hollywood is as old as science-fiction itself. I will tell you this, Hollywood and the theater in general is acting in an agenda to undercut Christian morals. I am a playwright and have belonged to forums with other professional playwrights and actors. They believe they must be deviant and must present you with deviance because to them it is a sacred duty to challenge the moral ideologies. They make statements like “we got to shock them to make them listen”. When you watch a play, movie or television show, it is those screenwriters own personal idealisms that are written in.
Like or Dislike:
0
How does “I don’t believe that a snake talked but I do believe that aliens seeded our planet sit with you?”
This blog is about helping (some) Christians in “reclaiming the mind”.
If you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Literal Resurrection of Jesus Christ, then why would a “talking snake” bother you?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, it sounds as if you find that most atheists start out with a belief in God…. but then abandon it…. (maybe because they are mad about something bad which has happened in their life ?). Since Romans says that man suppresses the truth, I’ve often wondered if most atheists would admit to having, at least for a time, a belief in God. Is that what you find? Why the anger….. do you think?
As far as aliens go…. definitely silly…. but it allows for another answer which frees one of submission to a higher authority. Your question is valid. You should stealthily throw some key questions into that blog discussion. Enter the fray.
Like or Dislike:
0
BSG ???? You gotta be kiddin’ me…. amateurs
How about one of the best film openings EVER…. “2001: A Space Odyssey anyone” ?? If you’re unfamiliar, you can find it quite easily on youtube… may be a bit shocking to some though. Search for “Dawn of Man” on youtube.
All kidding aside and SF banter notwithstanding, it’s a topic that’s been around since the book of the aforementioned movie was written in 1968. If not longer.
And I’ve personally struggled with it during a certain period in my life. To be completely honest, I still on occasion wonder. It’s difficult to explain pyramids, mayan periods, etc and the “alien seeding” concept is an easy way out. We can’t explain all the things we see on this earth. Whether the creation was literal as depicted in Genesis or not, (ooops…. am I now going to be labeled forever as a heretic ???) is besides the point that exogenesis or panspermia don’t offer a solution at all either.
Dennis pointed out the words to describe the phenomenon, we should understand them, not deride them as laughable. We should try to find a Christian way to explain lovingly that neither one explains the “origin of species”. And then engage with those that adhere to it.
Over many years I’ve come to the conclusion that only God’s creation ex nihilo provides an answer… and it’s visible all around.
All the rest (6 literal days, here or elsewhere, Mayans, pyramids, Nazca lines, Wandjina aboriginal myths in Australia, Japanese dogu, ….) inconsequential chatter. But I for one would like to see more Christians being able to engage in discussions around them. We tend to sweep them under the rug and are unable to engage with the culture around us. I personally think we’re not doing ourselves a service in that matter.
PS: CMP, Let me know the producers like your solution to the Adama problem, when you find it. I’ll definitely watch if they do
In Him
Mick
Like or Dislike:
0
Oh and as a side note .. for those interested..
Voyager 1 is currently the fastest man-made vehicle that is travelling interstellar @ 38,600 Mph. It’ll take it roughly 17,400 years to cover what light travels in a year. Considering the closest star to our sun is roughly 4.7 lightyears away, it’ll take Voyager 1 close to 80,000 years to get there. And there’s no other planet close to Alpha Centauri C. So where did the aliens come from ???
I had to re-do the math since I hadn’t done it in quite a while, but I believe I’m correct. I’ll double check and let you know if I made an error.
Cheers !
Mick
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, one ward: warp. No two: warp drive.
Like or Dislike:
0
BSG was fine, but nothing compared to Babylon 5
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP.. lol.. “But I’m givin’ her all she’s got capt’n” !! (Can’t type in a scottish accent though) even then.. it would take a while
Like or Dislike:
0
Alien seeding of life may be an interesting discussion point, but it is not a dogmatic belief of most non-theists. We don’t have to pick between talking snakes and aliens.
Listen to Dawkins’ words in the Expelled clip linked above: “Nobody knows how [life] got started.” “We don’t know.” “No one has any idea how it started” His comments about aliens was not to propound a dogmatic belief but were a discussion in response to questioning by Stein.
I see a fundamental difference between the non-theist and Christian positions:
Dawkins first and foremost says “We don’t know.” Anything beyond this is supposition. Maybe its aliens, maybe natural causes not yet understood (like lightning 1000 years ago) maybe its God? But really, our current understanding falls far short of certainty on this question.
We don’t know.
The Christian first and foremost says “We do know.” It was not aliens. It was not natural abiogenesis. It was God. We know this. We have a book that says this. We sometimes feel this is very true in our hearts.
We can’t be wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
Can it fairly be said that Atheism is not an intellectual matter; it’s a matter of morality. (Romans 1:22, Psalm 14:1 ) It is a human resentment of the reality that there is a God and he is gong to judge me and you. Atheism is simply a project to get out from under God’s authority.
It can be observed that the bible says God speaks to us through two revelations – creation and conscience. When we respond to God, “I want to know You, I need to know You”; God gives more light. It says all men have some light. Light obeyed increases light. God gives us truth; when we believe that truth, God gives us more truth. Ex. – Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39); Cornelius (Acts 10).
Has there ever been a time when we have had more “scientific” evidence (light) that points to a creator and designer of man and all that is the universe? When they see a fine watch they say it has a watch maker, when they see a tall building they know it has a designer, but when they see God’s creation they say it evolved without a deisgner or by chance. So, atheisism is not a matter of intellectualism it is a matter of morality. An antheist is a person who the idea of God makes him uncomfortable. If he can get rid of this idea of God he can get rid of his uncomfortable feeling.
Atheists have no starting point so the notion of aliens is just defering the question of a starting point through the imagination of little fearful men and women who have no proof, no evidence. They primarily use intellectual intimidation and they particularlily use it in our schools on young un-discipled minds.
Could it be the reason such non believers don’t have an answer to the origins of life or the universe is because they refuse to live up to the light that God has already given us. Why should God show them more until they obey what we already have been shown and now know? I believe God will hold accountable more so those who have heard the gospel and refused the truth than those who have not heard it. In thier conscious, so called athiest know this too.
Perhaps if they wanted to understand the part of the Bible they don’t understand, like “In the beginning God”" they should begin to obey the part they do understand – morality and obedience for example, but they don’t want to believe, they do not want to obey and as a result they only have the “universal acid” of Darwinism and the unsubstantiated belief that its all just a cosmic accident or man is an alien plant as arguments. (sorry for the length)
Like or Dislike:
0
Another quote-mining of Dawkins can produce: “A serious case could be made for a deistic God.” And yet once you look at it in context, you see that he is still very much an atheist. This provides a good baseline for just how pathetically weak of an endorsement “an intriguing possibility” is. When I first watched the Matrix I thought the possibility that I’m plugged into a virtual reality machine was intriguing. I still do, but I still won’t take this intriguing possibility seriously until someone gives me a red pill.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, one could actually investigate if life was brought to earth by aliens. There are a number of things that could actually prove this. We could find remnants of early DNA on Mars or on a meteorite or some other extra terrestrial source. These are big ifs, but they are within the realm of possibility. And few atheists actually claim that this is the exclusive explanation of life on this planet. It would require substantial proof.
Proving that God created everything is unprovable. Most “proofs” are simply conjecture and rely on authority, not proof. And many people who claim that God created everything are quite confident that its true and no amount of evidence to the contrary would ever convince them otherwise. And if a god created everything, there is even less proof that its the god of the Bible, since this god doesn’t seem to edit its inspired passages for accuracy and rational consistency. This god also seems to have the maturity of a 5 year child when it comes to people who cross him, throwing tantrums, sending floods, burning people alive for all eternity, and seemingly craving attention all the time from his followers in the form of animal sacrifices, prayers, praise, and financial contributions.
While I don’t think we have enough evidence to even suppose aliens started life on this planet, this is far more rational than talking snakes, virgin births, and the sun stopping in the sky.
Like or Dislike:
0
Curt Maybe its aliens, maybe natural causes not yet understood (like lightning 1000 years ago) maybe its God? But really, our current understanding falls far short of certainty on this question. We don’t know.
The Christian first and foremost says “We do know.” It was not aliens. It was not natural abiogenesis….
The strength of conviction is of minimal consequence. You can’t mock someone for a bizarre belief when you also have bizarre beliefs based on the argument that you hold your bizarre beliefs with less conviction.
Like or Dislike:
0
OK…maybe it’s Satan’s demons posing as these aliens. Like I said, We can’t forget that Satan is going to do everything possible to disprove God’s creation. Gen 6:4.
Like or Dislike:
0
The most difficult thing for atheists to explain is the beginning of the universe. The universe had a beginning and there is no non-theistic explanation for that. Theism however, provides a rational explanation for that beginning. Then, once one grants a powerful God, then all sorts of other things become possible, such as other non-human beings. Talking animals are inconsequential, because an explanation for having a perception of an animal talking does not require that the animals vocal cords and mouth formed the sounds of human speech.
regards,
John
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t know what bother me more about this post. The highlighting and literalizing of one of the more obviously mythic aspects of the creation narrative (I guess we should be thankful that you didn’t assert that snakes once walked on two legs as I had be taught in Sunday school) or the superficial treatment of one of the more speculative corners of evolutionary naturalism. All this post did was creating a good deal more heat than light. Speaking only for myself I find the concept of Aliens seeding the earth quite a bit more plausible than talking snakes (however neither concept is partially convincing). I thank God that he has given me the faith to believe in Christ’s resurrection and wish that Christians would stop putting stumbling block in the path of reflective non believers. Next you will be telling us that rainbows did not exist before “God put his bow in the sky as a sign of his covenant with Noah”
Peace
Steve in Toronto
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve, the point is not that all Christians must believe that snakes walked and talked (which is perfectly reasonable to believe if you believe that a man rose, sea parted, and donkey talked), but the mocking of someone concerning this who believes that we came from ET.
Maybe this ET talked and walked and looked like a snake? Would the Biblical narrative be more real then. Sadly, I suppose it would to many.
Like or Dislike:
0
I am sorry Michael I know your post was more nuanced. I was reacting more to the tone of some of the commenter’s. I grew up in a godly Christian home and for good parts of the last 20 years I have felt as if my faith was hanging by a thread. I pity someone who comes to our faith cold. I am convinced that the issues that are raised by this post are distractions. We need to keep the focus on the person and work of Christ. We also need to have a thoughtful discussion of what Genre the creation narratives are actually written in. I recently read Gilgamesh and frankly it has a lot more in common with the first few chapters of Genesis than most Christians are willing to admit. No one expects a seven headed dragon to turn up at the end of days why are we all so fixated on a what seems to be such obvious mythic images (God forming man from dust, Eve from a rib, a tree of good and evil ect.). It’s frightening to me to see how much of orthodox theology seems to hanging on wooden literal readings of these texts. On the other hand it’s exciting to think what insights could be waiting for Orthodox Christian scholars who are willing to grapple with these texts in the light of what we have learn looking at modern science and ancient Middle Eastern literature.
God Bless
Steve
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve seen what higher criticism has done to the Resurrection.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
Christ was raised from the dead no mater what a few flaky liberal scholars say on the other hand I don’t see why it follows that we should read the first few chapters of geneses as if it was yesterdays newspaper
Like or Dislike:
0
Only a “few flaky liberal scholars” challenge the resurrection story. Is that right?
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve in Toronto,
Thanks for the comments. I am perhaps one who came to “our faith cold”. Or at least quite lukewarm. And from an RC background nonetheless. Or even worse ! A European RC background
“I am convinced that the issues that are raised by this post are distractions. We need to keep the focus on the person and work of Christ.”
The question I grappled with for years is “WHAT Christ ?” What work ? What’s important ? I can believe in the historical Christ, as a good teacher of morals, a “communist avant la lettre” who showed us to share with everyone, etc.. But it leaves you short.
The fact that there IS a creator, that there is ONE God, that He is theistic in nature and that Christ is the only begotten Son, is quite important to our faith. And that means Genesis is part of it. Including the original sin piece (which no-one likes these days).
I do agree however that we very much get distracted with discussions amongst Christians on whether the Genesis account is literal or not. It detracts somewhat from the core.
In Him
Like or Dislike:
0
Okay, Michael, if you are going to throw out this mockery of a thread of atheist alienists, you have to include a link so that we can all judge the context of the discussion. To do otherwise is not intellectually honest.
For the record, I don’t know ANY atheists who believe that life on earth came from outer space and I would justly ridicule them properly for an “alien of the Gaps” argument. That said, atheists do spend an inordinate amount of free time making fun of Christian beliefs. Many of us are stuck to one degree or another, by our Christian upbringing. Often I consider myself an ex-Christian rather than as an atheist plain and simple – can’t just ditch where I come from.
I second what Curt said: the responsible response to origins questions is “I Don’t Know”. This is the power of procedural naturalism, the power to leave questions open for further consideration. Whatever reasons Christians have for believing in God, I don’t think their position in claiming certainty for their origin beliefs is very strong.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve in Toronto, do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve as written in the Book of Genesis?
Like or Dislike:
0
The entire “Jesus Project” was founded on what seems to me to be to be two fatally flawed premises firstly the presumption of naturalism (we have never seen a dead man rise from the dead there for dead people don’t rise from the dead) and secondly the belief that “Scientific” techniques of literary analysis would yield any thing other than a exact mirror image of the prejudices of the critic when unleashed on the small amount of 2000 thousand year old documents that are available for analysis (since we know that dead people don’t rise from the dead any documents that calm that they do can be discarded as obviously unreliable). The belief that this analysis would yield any thing other than then the hyper skeptical results they did is flakey. Sadly your right more than a “few” scholars do defend this extremely flawed project but there numbers are dwindling. The “third quest for the historical Jesus” seems quite a bit more promising.
Like or Dislike:
0
Becoming comfortable with “I Don’t Know” as an answer to big questions was one of the most enlightening aspects of my becoming a ex-xtian. As a believer I had to believe and defend tenants of the faith that I couldn’t honestly say I knew to be true and which appeared incompatable with a great growing body of knowledge.
Accepting the “I Don’t Know” puts one on the offensive in the search for truth.
Like or Dislike:
0
Re:Truth Unites… and Divides
I can’t say with absolute certainly yes or no but if I had to take a position I would say no. But I am very concerned that a lot of Paul’s thinking seems to be dependent on a literal Adam. So at present I am suspending judgment and trying to expose myself to theologians that are exploring alternate readings of Paul (NT Wright and Karl Bath). I don’t think that believing in a literal Adam is irrational but I am not convinced that the is the point that the author(s) of the creation narratives was actually trying to make. If I had the time or the talent I would take six years off work learn Greek and Hebrew immerses my self in original source. Sadly at least for now I am forced to rely on expert opinion and when I hear a serous Christian scholar saying that they believe in doctrine “six day creation” I have a hard time taking them seriously. I am still struggling with these issues but my trajedtery over the last 30 years has been fairly constant.
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
Like or Dislike:
0
“Steve in Toronto, do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve as written in the Book of Genesis?”
Steve: “…but if I had to take a position I would say no.”
I suspected that would be the case. It’s polite to ask for confirmation.
“But I am very concerned that a lot of Paul’s thinking seems to be dependent on a literal Adam.”
Exactly. And if the Apostle Paul believed and taught a literal Adam, and if the early New Testament Church believed in a literal Adam, and if the Early Church Fathers believed in a literal Adam, what does that tell you?
“So at present I am suspending judgment and trying to expose myself to theologians that are exploring alternate readings of Paul (NT Wright and Karl Bath).”
Please round out your readings with scholar-theologians who rebut NT Wright and Karl Barth.
Grace and peace.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Atheists scoff at talking snake of Genesis 1, but think aliens may have seeded Earth’s population March 24, 2009 Parchment and Pen [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Re: Truth Unites… and Divides I had never hear of Karl Barth before I read Cornelius Van Til (actually it was probably Shaffer but you get the idea) and the fact that I frequent this Blog is evidence that I have not cut my self off more conventional orthodox theology (right now I am reading Robertson’s Christ and the Covenants” and Beale’s “The Temple and the Church’s Mission” is next in line but I confess that I now longer think that I will ever again be able to embarrass any theological system with the enthusiasm that I embraced reformed theology 15 years ago. As it stands right now the reformed critics of Wight and Barth have convinced me that they are not “confessional” not that they are not “Biblical”. I am intrigue by a lot of the Anglican stuff I have read recently (mostly Rowan Williams and NT Wright). The sad fact is that the more I study these issues the more I am becoming convinced that I will never have certain answers to these questions this side of the kingdom. I don’t understand how Confessional Christians can defend there doctoral with such conviction.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0
Re: Truth Unites… and Divides (and anyone else)
Your prayer are always welome
God Bless
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve in Toronto,
Why don’t you read this book by Beale instead, and put it at the top of your reading list?
“I am intrigue by a lot of the Anglican stuff I have read recently (mostly Rowan Williams and NT Wright).”
I’m sorry to hear that.
P.S. You’ve used the word “certain” several times in your comments. How do you define this term? I suspect that a fuzzy understanding of this term is tripping you up.
Like or Dislike:
0
Re:The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism
I will probably get around to it (I heard him interview about it on both the Issues ect and the Reformed Forum) but I think I have reached the point regarding inerrancy that I reached regarding six day creationism 25 years ago. The more I read (both pro and con) the less I was convinced of the conventional orthodox position and what’s worse central elements of my faith were beginning to feel shaky. Learning about how the metaphorical language of the ancient Hebrews reflected their view of the world as God’s temple seems infinitly more edifying that diving back into the “Bible Wars”
Re: Anglican stuff sorry if I wasn’t an Anglican I would probably be a Lutheran (ELC not LCMS) or maybe PCUSA would you like that better? By the way CS Lewis was an Anglican what wrong with him? (Yes I know you have a long list starting with purgatory)
Re: Certainty I am not certain what it means to be certain (does that make me hopelessly post modern)
Like or Dislike:
0
If you think that’s silly what about the naturalistic responses to the big bang and the fine-tuning. The universe popped into into being out of nothing – that’s explains the big bang. And there are an infinite number of unobservable universes that aren’t fine-tuned – that explains our fine-tuned universe.
I am not kidding.
Wintery Knight
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve in Toronto wrote:
>when I hear a ser[i]ous Christian scholar[s] saying that
>they believe in [the] doctrine [of a] “six day creation” I
>have a hard time taking them seriously.
I could care less what the scholars say. What does the text mean is what matters to me. The author of Genesis did intend to teach a particular duration for Creation Week, and that duration is best described by the simple unambiguous modern phrase, “144 hours.” Any denial of this conclusion is either illogical or inconsistent with the evidence.
For details, go here: http://www.ittybittycomputers.com/Essays/Falsifiability.htm
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve in Toronto,
I understand what you are saying. I’m in the same boat. I’m not sure how to approach the opening chapters of Genesis just yet, but I do know for a fact that a modern, wooden, strictly literal interpretation is out of the question.
If you are interesting in this subject more, John H. Walton has written several good books on it, namely a commentary on Genesis and another on reading the Old Testament within the context of Ancient Near Eastern literature. I know it may ruffle the feathers of some, but Peter Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation (of which Beale’s Inerrancy book is a response to) has a good chapter on this topic too (Chapter 2).
Given the science of the day, its not very easy for the thinking person to wrestle with the more popular interpretations of Genesis in a manner that satisfies traditional orthodoxy, but thats to be expected and also not new. The church once had to deal with the new science of the day, namely heliocentrism, and redo a lot of its theology that was based off of the old way of thinking about the universe. We’ll eventually have to do the same with Paul’s treatment of Adam in his letters.
Some may not like this and may think that science is trumping the Bible, but they are just misguided. Science is only trumping their interpretation, and though they act like it, their interpretations are not inspired.
I’m not a theologian (yet!), so its not my job to figure this stuff out. All I have is the knowledge science brings to the table and what I know from reading scholarly writings on the Ancient Near East. We’ll eventually work these theological problems out and come to a reasonable understanding of them given enough time. Although I haven’t read it, I think Denis O. Lamoureux’s book, Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution, attempts to do this.
You may enjoy a blog called Beyond the Firmament. Google the name and it should be the first result. The post for March 11th, called Through Ancient Eyes, is the last of a 16-part video series the author has made concerning Science and Christian Education. I think you will enjoy it very much, as it deals with the question of how an ancient Israelite would have understood the creation account.
The Video section on the site is also a wonderful resource on this topic, if you want to learn more about it yourself or show them to others who have the same concerns you do. Some of the videos, like the Christianity & Biology ones, may prove especially sobering to six-day creationists because the science and facts of evolution are plainly provided and explained by a competent, Christian biologist.
I hope some of these can help!
Greg
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg: “I’m not sure how to approach the opening chapters of Genesis just yet, but I do know for a fact that a modern, wooden, strictly literal interpretation is out of the question.”
Do you think that the Apostle Paul inspired by God was making a “modern, wooden, strictly literal interpretation” when he wrote and taught about a literal Adam that was written about in the Book of Genesis?
Like or Dislike:
0
This is quite the interesting discussion. Quoting Dawkins from “Expelled” brings about a good laugh. He stated that there is no way a god designed the world. It is more plausible for aliens to have seeded the earth than for a god to have designed it. How is it scientific to exclude a possibility because of presuppositions?
I would recommend “The Privileged Planet” by Gonzales and “A Meaningful World” by Witt and Wicker. They make a pretty strong argument for there being no possibility for life in any other galaxies much less any remote planets. If this is verified by science as we move forward, how does this alter this present conversation?
Just some questions is had,
MJP
Like or Dislike:
0
Truth,
“Do you think that the Apostle Paul inspired by God was making a “modern, wooden, strictly literal interpretation” when he wrote and taught about a literal Adam that was written about in the Book of Genesis?”
I don’t know as I’m not a New Testament theologian. I think there is room in our interpretation though, don’t you?
As to the literalness of Adam, I’m open to suggestions. If the opening chapters of Genesis fit ancient literary methods other than strict history, would you be willing to reconsider your current position?
I know two things as of right now:
1. Ancient Near Eastern literature and culture sheds much needed light on the Old Testament, particularly Genesis. The goal is to understand it as the ancients did then, not as we do today. Doing so disconnects the account from needing to adhere to our modern sensibilities regarding the physical origins of the universe. By understanding it as Ancient Near Eastern literature according to its own conventions, I do not in the least try to reconcile the creation account and flood with modern science. Doing so undermines Biblical authority by attempting to make it fit a mold it was not made to fit in. Nor do I try to force modern science to conform to Genesis, regardless of the interpretation one adheres to. They are free to be as they are.
2. There is strong evidence for evolution and an old universe. There is no evidence for a recent creation and special creation of life, and in fact, there is evidence against it. Six-day creationism and special creation models make testable predictions. These predictions, when tested, have not produced any helpful evidence for the model.
That’s where I know I stand. As to how Paul dealt with Adam, I think, as I mentioned, there is room available for other interpretations.
All I know now is that my previously held position of six-day creationism is not supported by the scriptural and scientific evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg: “Do you think that the Apostle Paul inspired by God was making a “modern, wooden, strictly literal interpretation” when he wrote and taught about a literal Adam that was written about in the Book of Genesis?”
I don’t know as I’m not a New Testament theologian. I think there is room in our interpretation though, don’t you?
As to the literalness of Adam, I’m open to suggestions.”
Good. Then I suggest that you follow your own suggestion. You wrote, “The goal is to understand it as the ancients did then, not as we do today.”
Then let’s regard the Apostle Paul as both ancient and the divinely inspired author of his epistles. Did he understand Adam to be a literal person in the Book of Genesis? Would his understanding as an ancient be a “modern, wooden, strictly literal interpretation” of Genesis as you put it?
Like or Dislike:
0
The work of Arthur C Clark, who worked with the alien thesis a lot in his works of fiction, and a long time ago already, and was considered an authority within the world of science, of course also needs some mention when we discuss this.
Like or Dislike:
0
I already answered that question. I don’t know as of now.
But to satisfy you, I will put forth a theory. Adam was a literal person, the first person indwelt with God’s image (whatever that could mean).
What I do know, and this is my starting point, concerns Genesis and science.
This is a thorny question to deal with simply because you are asking me to make a hard pronouncement on an ancient person’s interpretation of an even more ancient text. The factors to consider in an exercise like this are bewildering to someone without any formal hermeneutical, exegetical, or theological training.
Its not as easy as looking at the text and defining what the words mean that Paul uses. I think the key lies in the ancient Hebrew interpretive framework that Ancient Near Eastern studies shed light on, as Paul, being a Jew, would probably have adhered to.
I believe that God inspired the writer of Genesis to pen a creation account that spoke to the ancient Israelites steeped in the Ancient Near Eastern culture of the time. The evidence supports this, and I doubt many Christians would advocate an interpretive view that did not consider the original audience. Since I also believe God inspired Paul in his epistles, I am of the firm commitment that Paul understood the creation account, and further on, Adam, as it was originally meant to be understood before he presented his theology of the spread of sin. Thus, I think the key lies first in understanding Genesis correctly than moving on to Paul.
Either that, or Paul authoritatively reinterpreted the story of Adam for his own purpose in discussing sin in the world, as other NT writers had done. Even if that were the case, it would not require me to change anything in regards to my current position regarding Genesis because Paul’s interpretation would be independent of the original interpretation and both would be valid in their context.
Truth, you seem to be starting with Paul and looking back towards Genesis, which I think is not the best way to proceed. If this idea is correct, that the inspired Paul would have correctly understood the Ancient Near Eastern Hebrew account of creation, than it changes everything. His interpretation of Adam would then conform to that viewpoint. To understand Paul would then require a correct understanding of Genesis. That then becomes our first priority.
And yet doing so proves lethal to young-earth creationism.
Thus, the only other alternative that I see is to reject any and all contextual studies regarding Genesis in favor of a personally satisfying and traditional viewpoint that is at odds not only with scripture itself, but also ancient near eastern literature and almost every major field of science known to man.
I am of the mindset that studying nature is a form of worship to God, and that we have reasonably understood God’s creation since the advent of science. This study of God’s natural revelation reveals to us that the universe is not young and that special creation did not occur.
That is what I know now, and where I stand. I confess I don’t have answers for everything from a theological perspective (but someone else might), but that does not dissuade me from the belief that I think they exist. After all, God is the author of both nature and scripture, so properly understood there should be no irreconcilable differences.
Like or Dislike:
0
I would assume Adam was literal as he has literal descendants….hence….”These are the generations of Jesus Christ” going backwards from Him to Adam….so either all the people were just sock puppets in a story book and all the Jews are really Gentiles…or they were real people. Why is it so hard to believe Adam could be literal?
I mean think about it, suppose we could time travel and go back 4,000 years and tell people we talk to others around the world in an instance and we cook our food in 2 minutes or less and we can travel across the land in less than a day, do you think they would believe us? What would make our present reality real to them? But to think, what if someone in the future came to us…would we believe them? So why all the fuss over whether Adam was literal? Of course he was, just because we don’t know his username or email addy does not mean he did not exist.
Like or Dislike:
0
BTW,
If they had computers then, what do you suppose they would blog about? Wait…they did, it’s called the Bible.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg: “But to satisfy you, I will put forth a theory. Adam was a literal person, the first person indwelt with God’s image (whatever that could mean).”
So Greg, are you making a “modern, wooden, strictly literal interpretation” like apostle Paul did when you say that Adam was a literal person?
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg,
Adam was the first man “indwelt” with God’s image? Do you mean he had the spark of the divine?
Like or Dislike:
0
We could eliminate a lot of confusion on this topic if people would be honest about their presuppositions. If you’re bringing Darwinistic presuppositions to the table, you’ll hit irreconcilable differences with the Bible’s teaching of special creation. In fact, Darwinistic evolution cannot answer the origins questions at all, and there is no evidence for speciation from common decent due to natural selection. Dawinism is a competitive (false) philosophy that is irreconcilable with the special creation viewpoint taught in Scripture. It is a simple case of the law of non-contradiction at work. Choose this day whom you serve. They cannot both be true.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara,
You may enjoy this: http://www.online-literature.com/twain/3264/
On a side note, there isn’t much evidence, if any, for the existence of writing in the time frame you are looking at. The scene was most likely dominated by oral storytelling before writing first came on the scene around 3500 BC.
Also, I meant made in the image of God, and thus possessing the image of God within one’s self, i.e as a part of their humanity.
Truth,
I don’t think you read or understood anything previously that I have said.
I theorized to satisfy you and cut you off where you were trying to take the discussion. I still maintain that I don’t entirely know yet how the opening chapters of Genesis should be approached. After all, contextual studies reveal that the way young-earthers interpret the creation account isn’t the way the original audience would have understood it. Why then do you seem so confident in maintaining your interpretation regarding Adam despite the fact that you missed the meaning of the creation account? Shouldn’t you be all the more cautious regarding the next three chapters?
You seem to have a problem with my caution, and I think it is because it treads on your traditional beliefs.
Dennis,
I’ve been very honest with my presuppositions.
I won’t hit irreconcilable differences with the Bible, only your interpretation of it. Please understand that your interpretation is neither inspired nor infallible. Stop acting like it is.
Of course evolution can not answer the questions of origins (I assume you mean life’s origins). That is the field of abiogenesis. If that is what you meant, than it would help if you did not confuse the two.
On the origin of species and differentiation, evolution answers those questions very nicely. In fact, it is one of the most well-supported theories in all of science. I mentioned certain resources above that get into the details, and I would highly recommend them to you, especially the two video series at Beyond the Firmament.
In fact, I won’t get into further discussion with you on this topic unless you take the time to watch them.
If by special creation you mean fiat creation 6,000 years ago and the special creation of life, than yes, biology, geology, cosmology, astronomy, and physics all disagree with that. Good thing the Bible does too.
Are you prepared to reject all that? Why don’t you just go back to geocentrism and reject all science that disagrees with a literal reading of the Bible like these people?
http://www.fixedearth.com/
http://www.geocentricity.com/
They consider someone like you very liberal regarding interpreting the Bible!
Why do you pick and choose what science you like and what you reject?
This is not the law of non-contradiction, as the position on creation presented in the Bible is not mutually exclusive with evolution and an old universe.
Various fallacies I’m seeing here are appeals to tradition, false dilemmas, and the most common of all Christian arguments against evolution, the straw man.
I know whom I serve. The one who saved me, Jesus Christ.
Dennis, I think it might be good not to add extra things to the Gospel.
Like or Dislike:
0
The question is,
How does “I don’t believe that a snake talked but I do believe that aliens seeded our planet sit with you?”
I believe a couple of points are necessary to flesh out the statement.
1. One would need to decide whether to read the genesis creation account albeit the talking snake as literal or figuratively. If you decide a litral rendering of the text, do you in fact read the whole bible this way?
2. True many other ANE interpretations of the creation story, flood etc. do align in many details, but one thing that separates the other fables from the biblical story is in the response of the deity to mankind. In short the other Gods are looking to extract some type of payment rendered, whereas the God of the bible makes a new covenant (actually continuing the covenant, but that’s another thread) so that mankind can flourish, of course obediently.
3. I really do not think people at least 99 percent; do not appreciate the complexity and infiniteness of the creation. Really have you pondered distance and time on the cosmic scale. The numbers are exponentially to the 10th power and beyond for other galaxies such as ours and within those galaxies how many solar systems such as ours. I am not advocating life every where, I think it is special and unique sort of like the BSG’s last episode portrays. God doesn’t have to be limited to our way of thinking as being local in the cosmic sense and yet it seems, so it is recently with discoveries of other worlds, that perhaps our blue marble in the ocean of time and space is one of a kind. But I fall short of it being an exclusive only club. We just do not know. And as of late I have been challenged in my thinking from a Biblical worldview perspective, almost wavering in thought, asking, are we alone. My mind can not comprehend the vastness of the universe, yet I feel kindred to something more.
4. at lastly given the context of groups of people that believe in God and those that perhaps have not found God. The challenge is uniquely 21st centuryish, if that is a word. I went to the Scifi site and checked out the forum on BSG. I was amazed how many people questioned God being introduced into the show and as usual people expanding upon the God theme, I say 50 -50. But what is unique is trying to tie the two together. Perhaps God is ex nihilo, perhaps this has happened before else where, maybe even here for the old earthers. The thing is, we need to be aware of all things in perspective as we move forward into a changing future. As such so will views of God change. We need to think outside the box and I suppose to not vehemently deny the possibility that life could arrive (or gotten a head start) from somewhere else. I believe one could hold that view and not be anthemia from Orthodox Christianity. Or just take the easy out and refer everyone to Deut. 29:29
Like or Dislike:
0
John CT (25): ‘The most difficult thing for atheists to explain is the beginning of the universe. The universe had a beginning and there is no non-theistic explanation for that.’
On the other hand, maybe it didn’t have a beginning. Existence might be the default, and nothingness may be an unstable or impossible condition. In other words, there must always be something. That’s not what Bible writers believed, of course, writing that God is the uncreated one and He created the world out of nothing.
But then, Bible writers also believed that night and day were produced by the sun’s travels over a stationary earth. And it was not important that Joshua understand what was actually happening when he commanded the sun and moon. The important thing was his faith; God worked with whatever belief Joshua had.
Like or Dislike:
0
TU&D said, “If you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Literal Resurrection of Jesus Christ, then why would a “talking snake” bother you?”
I believe in the Virgin Birth and the Literal Resurrection of Jesus Christ and yet I believe that it is OK to either believe that Adam and Eve existed just as written about in Genesis or to believe that this was an allegory showing how God created us all to have perfect union with him and we chose to go astray. I know that some folks will say we can’t pick and choose what is literal in the Bible and what is not. BUT…I am willing to bet that 99.9 percent of Christians will believe there is SOMETHING in the Bible that did not happen literally. Did Lot’s wife really turn into a pillar of salt? If you don’t think so, then you too do not believe that EVERYTHING is to be taken literally in the Bible. Then it’s just a matter of what percent you don’t think is literal. If you think none of it happened, then it would sound like you would not be a Christian in the sense of beliefs found within the Nicene or Apostles Creed.
That’s just my two cents worth…
Joanie D.
Like or Dislike:
0
Gary wrote:
> Please understand that your interpretation is neither
> inspired nor infallible. Stop acting like it is.
And pray tell how am I acting like I’m infallible?
> In fact, I won’t get into further discussion with you
> on this topic unless you take the time to watch them.
Are these the inspired and infallible videos that will set me straight?
> Why don’t you just go back to geocentrism and reject
> all science that disagrees with a literal reading of
> the Bible like these people?
>
> http://www.fixedearth.com/
> http://www.geocentricity.com/
>
> They consider someone like you very liberal regarding
> interpreting the Bible!
Are pejorative attacks like this necessary or even befitting someone who claims to be a Christ follower?
> Dennis, I think it might be good not to add
> extra things to the Gospel.
Where did I even mention the Gospel, much less add to it?
> I know whom I serve. The one who saved me, Jesus Christ.
I would find it easier to believe this, Gary, if your profession matched your behavior in this forum.
-Dennis
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis relax the way you took me apart in post number 15 suggests your last person to throw stones about hyperbole (calling attention to a dyslexic’s grammar in a blog post is a low blow-especially considering our hosts weakness). It may be hard for you to believe but even great men of God can confuse there own interruptions for the obvious word of God consider the following quotes:
“People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”
“Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’… [are] motivated by ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.’”
If you haven’t guessed the first quote is from Martin Luther and the second was from John Calvin. Both men were convinced that The Copernican model of the heliocentric universe was contrary to the revealed word of God. Please try to be a bit more humble just because it seem obvious to you what a text means doesn’t mean there might not be other interpretation that previous (or later) generations of Christians (or even Christians in other traditions) would find much more convincing. Thay may even be right.
Peace
Steve in Toronto
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve,
I’m very sorry for hurting your feelings. I wasn’t trying to take apart your grammar but improve the readability just like whoever put in the brackets in the two quotes you just lifted from Luther & Calvin. However, I guess since those dudes are dead you won’t hurt their feelings.
-Dennis
Like or Dislike:
0
Joanie,
Just for the sake of being the literalist in all this…I believe Lot’s wife became a real pillar of salt. LOL I am in that .01% who takes things literally. Well we know that Lot’s wife was not there with them in the cave, and btw, did Lot bring with him all that wine or did he get it along the way?
Another question I have, the two lion faced men who fought with one of David’s warriors…they were Hittites and the Israeli’s knew what Hittites were so why the description here in the passage? Did these guys really look like lions? Hmmm, I don’t know but makes sense to me.
Perhaps while C Michael Patton is reading books he can find one that also explains the Bermuda Triangle and Sasquatch…because it seems that Christians shy away from those issues. You know I am being silly, but it is true. When a Christian investigates those things, they tend to be a little shunned. But to pass off those things as nothing just makes a person who goes through experiences search within other religions to find those explanations.
Alien seeding though..what a funny idea, but it is not new. Perhaps God is the alien? Because He is not from this planet? Question mark implies I am asking those who do not accept God to perhaps consider. Our views of aliens come from pop culture. If there are such advanced alien civilizations…why do they crash on our planet? If their technology is so great, why do they look for the people they do to do their experiments? Again, it’s a theory.
But evolution is always called a theory. Because it is a pre-supposition that needs facts to support it, but too often the scientists will manufacture facts from nothing or tweak with them until they make the facts fit. Remember facts change, the truth never changes. I went to the Creation Science Museum and it was lovely there, everyone should go. I recommend it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis
I have Dyslexia also. Got your back on that one brother.
Like or Dislike:
0
>just because it seem[s] obvious to you what a text
>means doesn’t mean there might not be other interpretation[s]
I didn’t write the essay I linked to @ http://www.ittybittycomputers.com/Essays/Falsifiability.htm
It was written in 1996 b/f I was even a Christian. I merely read it and found it compelling. I do know the author.
> Please try to be a bit more humble
Confidence in what I believe doesn’t negate humility. I’m willing to be corrected when presented with compelling evidence. So far I haven’t had an opportunity to do that. If you (or anyone) can rebut the conclusion that the author of this article makes, please email me at elenburg@discovertruth.com and I’ll ensure the author receives your input.
Waiting to be humbled,
-Dennis
Like or Dislike:
0
Re: Dennis
No harm to foul. I have long since stopped caring what people say about my spelling and grammar (in fact now I am grateful for it, since it spared me a likely career in law, I became an architect instead). The point I was trying to make was suggest we dial down the rhetoric a bit. I often wonder why it is that so many Christians seem to take such delight in declaring fellow believers heretics. One of the things I admire so much about our host is the delicate way Michael balances his own impeccably orthodox positions with a willingness to consider alternate opinions. We can all learn from his example.
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis,
My name is Greg.
“And pray tell how am I acting like I’m infallible?”
Its typical among young-earth creationists to assume the plain, modern, post-enlightened Western understanding of Genesis in English as equal to God’s actual Word which originated in the ancient Near East 3,500 years ago in a culture and language that does not exist anymore. I’ve seen it done too often by that crowd. I question their understanding of scripture and they accuse me of questioning the authority of God’s Word. It seems they are unable to recognize the difference between actual scripture and the extra layer of interpretation that is placed on it.
For example, you said “…you’ll hit irreconcilable differences with the Bible’s teaching of special creation.” and “Dawinism (sic) is a competitive (false) philosophy that is irreconcilable with the special creation viewpoint taught in Scripture.”
Right here you are assuming your interpretation of the plain and literal words of Genesis are sufficient to reject evolution. You elevate your interpretation to the same level of scripture, blurring the distinction between the two. That is why I asked you to stop acting as if your interpretation was scripture itself.
“Are these the inspired and infallible videos that will set me straight?”
I never described them like that, but I do think they contain sufficient evidence for a theory that you do not understand. I think it is easy for you to oppose it because you do not understand it.
Ignorance is bliss, and I think you are afraid of losing that bliss.
“Are pejorative attacks like this necessary or even befitting someone who claims to be a Christ follower?”
I think you completely missed the force of the argument I made.
I placed you in a position that you cannot defend yourself against, except by ignoring it.
Modern geocentrists reject just a little bit more science than you do, and read the Bible just a little bit more literally than you do.
You are not a geocentrist because of the science you accept that tells you the earth rotates around the sun. You accept all the science that the church 500 years ago unanimously rejected as heresy. Steve’s quotes from Luther and Calvin can give you an idea of that.
And here’s the kicker: You accept all the science that caused the church to reinterpret scripture so it would fit man’s understanding of the solar system. A new interpretation of scripture was only discovered because science made it necessary to find one.
Because of that you better be incredibly cautious when you question who I serve when I, or anyone, reasonably use science to inform an interpretation of scripture.
Unless you are a hardcore geocentrist, your words are bordering on hypocrisy.
I hope you understand my argument now.
“Where did I even mention the Gospel, much less add to it?”
You said this previously:
“…that is irreconcilable with the special creation viewpoint taught in Scripture. It is a simple case of the law of non-contradiction at work. Choose this day whom you serve. They cannot both be true.”
You questioned who I served because I think evolution is true. You think evolution is at odds with scripture and because of that, it is impossible for one to serve God and believe in evolution. You made it a case of either/or. Either scripture and God, or evolution.
Using this reasoning, it naturally follows that one cannot come to a saving faith and also believe in evolution. Thus, for one to come to a saving faith, one must first stop believing in evolution. You said it yourself: “They cannot both be true”.
And that, Dennis, is adding an extra step to the Gospel. I see no such requirements in scripture.
“I would find it easier to believe this, Gary, if your profession matched your behavior in this forum.”
And it would seem that the only way this could be so, in your eyes, would be if I agreed wholeheartedly with you on these matters.
I’m an intellectually honest man. I go where the evidence leads me. I’m also a man of faith. I trust the One who saved me. I trust Him in his special and natural revelation. I do not thing God deceives us, or that He made a universe that has the total appearance of great age but is in fact quite young.
When I see people attempting to undermine the authority of scripture by interpreting it in ways that do not reflect the inspired author’s original intent, I think I have good reason to oppose them.
When I see people attempting to muddy good science with ignorance, tradition, and dogma, than I also oppose them.
I have backed up and explained all that I have said. I have given resources where appropriate (have you taken the time to understand them before you criticize?). I have clearly made known my position and I have not glossed over the difficulties it may bring. When I don’t know, I say as much. When I think people rely on ignorance instead of evidence, then I call them out on it.
My behavior on this forum is completely appropriate. I think you only find fault with it because it is in opposition to you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara,
“But evolution is always called a theory. Because it is a pre-supposition that needs facts to support it, but too often the scientists will manufacture facts from nothing or tweak with them until they make the facts fit. Remember facts change, the truth never changes. I went to the Creation Science Museum and it was lovely there, everyone should go. I recommend it.”
If you would take the time, I would recommend these three videos: http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/christianity-biology/
They are some of the most clear presentations I have seen on the scientific method and the scope and proper use of it, evolution, and the various interpretations of the creation account in Genesis.
These videos are good because you will at the least come away knowing more about your current position than you did going into it. That much was true for me at least.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis,
About the article you posted, the issue I have with it is that it assumes it can discern the meaning of the creation account independently of the cultural context the inspired author was writing in.
I do not question the logic presented in the paper, only the initial premise, namely that one need only use the text at hand, in only its literary context, to discern what is meant by it. I think there is sufficient reason to reject this premise on the grounds that any text cannot be sufficiently understood independently of the culture that helped produce it. Literary conventions and nuances are often lost to foreign cultures.
I’ve emphasized previously that if we do not understand the cultural context, which helps us understand the way things were communicated to people in the Ancient Near East, than we will inevitably miss the meaning of the text regardless of how well we understand its literary structure and words.
It gets down to this: If the author did intend to convey a 144 hour creation week, what does it even matter? The significance of it all is lost on us because we are so far removed from the author and his audience in years, language, distance, and culture.
I gave resources above in post #46 that go into this topic much deeper if you, or your author friend, are interested.
Like or Dislike:
0
By the way the sun orbits around inside the galaxy as does other galaxies that orbit around the universe.
I think the term alien seeding is a little misleading, I believe. It tends to focus our attention to the little green men flying in their saucers.
How do we really know that other civilizations of humanity have not come before us?
Do we put God in a box and say God of the heaven and earth; I thought it was the Heavens & earth. It is a hard pill to swallow I submit, but the heavens (universe) is infinite in its own right, meaning that to us it seems infinite. Reading the OP from CMP and watching BSG for the 2nd time. Could humanity not have been helped along the way, even divinely guided? I can see how people can lose their faith, I question it sometimes myself in light of all the dividing within the church proper over issues that really how no bearing on a faith in God. There is a deeper mystery yet revealed and I suppose only in the next life will it be understood
Like or Dislike:
0
This discussion has raised a number of questions that I (and I don’t think most Evangelicals don’t have clear answers for). To what extent does the bible interpret it’s self? Is it legitimate to interpret the Bible using contemporary ancient texts (or modern science?). What do we do with instances where later biblical writers seem to be reading the text in way that would seem alien to it original authors? It seems very likely to me that Paul is reading the creation texts in a much more literal way than there original author(s) intended. What does this do to our doctrine of inspiration? It’s not just the debate about various creation models that are impacted by these questions. The way that New Testament authors use the Old Testament has been tying bible scholars up in knots for years as one scholar (I think is was Peter Enns) said “One thing that we find using the historical grammatical method to study the New Testament is that the New Testament authors did not use the historical grammatical method”. A lot of the debate about the New Perspective on Paul focuses on the use of contemporary Jewish texts to interprete what Paul means when he talks about “the works of the law”. For too long Evangelicals have been pretending at these problems don’t exist. Its time we faced up to them.
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg,
As a young-earth creationist myself, I often question why you would believe it would have to take millions of years, or hundreds of thousands of years to change a group of people. You say in your post
“Its typical among young-earth creationists to assume the plain, modern, post-enlightened Western understanding of Genesis in English as equal to God’s actual Word which originated in the ancient Near East 3,500 years ago in a culture and language that does not exist anymore”
Why would it take that long? And how do you know the language is not in use anymore? I have been studying languages and how they develop in other countries and the difference in accents over a span of time and place. It took less than 200 years for the American English to develop as it did for Australian English, but we have the same language parent. British English is itself less than 500 years old. John Wyclyffe translated the Bible still using the German in some words. We must understand that English is relatively new compared to other languages.
Indo-European language groups developed out of Turkey and spread across the Balkans and across Russia. And as a matter of genetics, my brother just had his ancestral dna test done, and it shows up a migration pattern across Europe. The starting point…Turkey. Now why is this important to realize? Noah’s ark is believed to have settled on the Turkey-Armenian border. The mountains of Ararat are located there.
How do evolutionary scientists deal with the dna proof of the 18 men and 7 daughters of Eve that all people come from? This is not conjecture, this is proven scientifically. That a person may have a mutation in his dna and does not mean he evolved or changed in a drastic way that would alter his descendants to make them more or less stronger or weaker than those around. Hence, micro-evolution is not a change in eye color or hair color.
We were always told these changes were to help people adapt to the environment they moved to en masse . So Scandinavians have light hair and blue eyes to help them live in the Arctic environment. But we know that Innuit Indians also live in the Arctic and they are dark. So micro-evolution does not make sense in that aspect.
So then from my question, why is it hard to accept that God created Earth and people just had more children and populated the Earth? Why does it have to take so long? We know from dna and language formation it only takes a few hundred years to change a group of people.
I have to say though trying to understand dna is hard because it is so technical with all the YStrands and alleles and DYS numbers and haplotype predictors. It involves a lot of numbers and math. I have dyscalculia and cannot work with numbers. But the map that my brother received from the commercial testing company shows very plainly a line of related people in a pattern across Europe.
This line incidentally is in tandem with the myth stories of Ireland, that a King Milesius of Spain had come from Galatia and migrated across Europe into Ireland. What is exciting about this is that we can see it clearly. And it did not take 5,000 years to accomplish this. Imagine our surprise in discovering we are not R1b1, but we are A1b2, from the Balkans and related to lots of people in Ireland…which Irish are considered R1b1. Does it not make me Irish now? My great-grandfather was from Ireland. Blue eyes by the way are a recessive trait. Does that mean I have blue eyes to help me adapt to the environment I am in? No, because surprisingly, there are some African groups who have blue eyes as well.
Like or Dislike:
0
I believe it is safe to say that the earth and everything from it, is at least older than 6,000 yrs as a Y.E. position would adhere to.
Observational science has shown through i.e. core samples from ice (Antarctica, Greenland, and other local) Tree rings and Geological layers of sediment.
With that in mind, is it unconceivable to believe the Earth is ancient?
I do not deny God, Christ or anything Biblical from a Christian/Biblical worldview, if any, it is the only plausible explanation, considering the very nature (sinful) of man.
Mankind needs a divine guidance in all matters of faith and a redemptive figure to reconcile man unto the creator. May it be that what we have as inspired texts are the result of a view that only fits into their time frame? If for example in Ezekiel the prophetic was of the 21st century would they understand or in Isaiah, would it be explainable in their terms?
Honestly there is much tension here for me. I do not disown the Christian worldview that I believe in, but I sometimes feel I am disowned by the very thing that other fundamental legalistic minds would label a heretic and consider me different or non-Christian I suppose.
There is just not enough evidence both historical and biblical to form a decisive position.
I believe God did set aside a people to procreate, to follow the one true God. I just can’t come to grips with the thought we are the only ones, in this giant soup bowel of a universe. I am not talking the alien thing but rather other humanoids else where.
Back to earth though, here is an interesting link to Mitochondrial Eve strictly from a scientific view, interesting to say the least.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199
&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Please email me at elenburg@discovertruth.com if you’re willing to continue this discussion thread in private email. I have more questions that are off topic from the original question Michael Patton posed.
I’ll try to watch the “Beyond the Firmament” videos this coming week.
-Dennis Elenburg
Like or Dislike:
0
Re: Kara Kittle
I hesitate to address your points since I am not a scientist but I don’t think you understand how micro-evolution actually works. The reason that blond hair and blue eyes are so common in Scandinavia is not that they offer an evolutionally advantage. It seems likely that at some point during that last ice age the people that we now call Caucasians were almost completely wiped out (I think this is the finding that you were referring to when you talk about the sons and daughters of eve). Among the few that survived was a large proportion of people who possessed the genetic mutation that gave them blond hair and blue eyes this mutation would have been a crippling disability in Africa but in northern Europe it really didn’t mater so the genes persisted. Once the ice receded the population of people that we now call Caucasians exploded since they had a continent to themselves and no real competition from other people groups. Resent research suggests that these people did however possess another mutation that is less obvious than there blond hair and blue eyes and this one did give them a real competitive edge. These people where lactose tolerant and were able to build extremely efficient dairy based economies (unlike there rivals in the south and east). The suggestion of these studies is that the human race is still evolving.
I often wonder why so many young earth creationists feel free to “cherry pick” evidence that appears to support there positions. If what they believe is true modern genetics is a “broken clock that is right twice a day”. To admit that science has anything useful to say about the origin of the human race would seem to me to buy into a series of assumptions that if carried to there obvious conclusions would undermine their position entirely.
God bless and like I said I am not a scientist (or theologian for that mater) just a interested layman
Cheers
Steve in Toronto
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara,
I was referring to the Hebrew language, how the form used 3,500 years ago is nothing like modern Hebrew used today. Think of the differences between Olde English and modern English and you can have an idea of the changes that occur as languages age.
I’m not very familiar with population genetics, but the articles Steve posted seem to delve into that sufficiently.
I found this one too that touches on that idea and the Mt. Ararat idea: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621.html
I also want to point out that the field of genetics has provided more hard evidence for evolution than any other field.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Saw this while browsing the other day. I also spend much time going through atheistic websites and blogs, [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Its that you dont believe a snake talked….i dont believe that god created everything in 7 days,before he created everything,there was nothing sooo where the hell did god come from IF there was nothing. Logically you cannot make something from absolutely nothing. So my question is… HOW DID GOD COME FROM NOTHING TO BEGIN WITH?
If a suggestion like this was posted already i apologise,i didnt read all the posts. Its my opinion
Like or Dislike:
0
The only ‘something (someone)’ who existed was God Himself. He has ALWAYS existed. He created the heavens and the earth from nothing. He spoke them into existence. He is all powerful, with no physical limits. I wouldn’t worship a God who wasn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0
In Catholic grade school in the 1940s, we studied a little book titled The Baltimore Catechism. One question in it was: “Where is God?” Its answer: “God is everywhere.” In my 70-some years since, this answer has tempered my approach to theology, philosophy, etc.
Think about it: If God is everywhere, He, She or It (maybe they?) is integral with all that exists — you, me, clothing, food, bacteria, the cosmos, et. al. — what you might call “all of God’s creatures.” To me, God is everybody, everything and probably — at least possibly — plenty more. This is why I find Athiestic arguments hard to accept.
And I believe in a “personal god.” Who or what is more personal than someone or something integral with every molecule and atom of me, you, them, everything? Its logical God would communicate with people, animals, bacteria, trees, rocks, planets, stars, whatever. And logical someone would pray to (converse with) God.
As for Darwin’s scientific findings and the theory that God created everything, I fail to see any serious disagreement, except for philosophical nit-picking. As for the belief the world was made in so-many “days,” I ask, “What is a day? What would be a ‘day’ on a planet a million or trillion light years away?”
The Bible’s chapter of Genesis indicates things were created in an orderly fashion. It doesn’t say God made Adam and Eve and then suddenly the Earth appeared beneath their feet a “day” later, and on next “day” the moon and starts popped into existence. If anything, Genesis begins of the story of evolution.
To accept what’s printed in a Bible or any other “sacred text” simply doesn’t recognize they have been handed down, copied and recopied, translated and retranslated, etc. Even in the English language, there are a dozen versions currently available. Neither Moses nor Christ ever said the words Three and Thou, no matter how sacred they might sound to us. Best we can hope for is that the gist of what’s in sacred scripture has been preserved.
Whether the Holy Koran, the Torah, the Nicene Creed, the Book of Mormon, ancient Egyptian carvings, Asop’s Fables or whatever, these contain what scholars have declared the Wisdom of the Ages. We ignore or misinterpret them at our peril.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ummm…but where did the Aliens come from? Did Aliens implant them? And where did those Aliens come from?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dennis, if you read the book of Genesis, you find all kinds of scripture that support both the “creation theory” and the involvement of aliens upon the Earth. I won’t start quoting, out of respect for time and the 100 word limit, but just go read Genesis with a fresh, objective, open eye, and you will see what I am talking about. As for the talking snake — the Jews historically have a great penchant for using metaphor, analogy and parables to get a point across.
Like or Dislike:
0
Do they believe that serpent still speaks today, because he does. Revelation calls him that old serpent, the devil. He is alive and well and is speaking today to all who will follow him.
More Comments: