Christian Explanation

[downbeatplumb]

I am a young earth creationist and think that the fossil record (or at least the bulk of it as I would not rule out some of it being the result of local catastrophic events) is a result of the flood of the Bible

That one

We have enough evidence for evolution to put our evidence for it to the level of something like gravity... you know: FACT. o.o

The fossils are cited because you think they all are the same age. This is ridiculous ^_^ As with evolution and gravity: FACT. o.o

The biblical deluge
[edit]Flood geology
Main article: Flood geology
Proponents of flood geology contend that the biblical deluge, Noah's ark, is to be taken literally in which most observed geological processes, like fossilization and sedimentary strata, are a later result of this event.
While some people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been rejected by mainstream geologists, biologists, and historians, many of whom consider it pseudoscience.[24] Though at one time even prominent workers in biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology,[25][26] this view is no longer widely held.[27]
[edit]

And it did not happen. This is a FACT. o.o

I ask you to cite some specific thing we observe today that you think it contradicts the Bible in some way and this is what you come up with!! Evolution insofar as it means common descent is a conclusion/interpretation that extrapolates from the kind of changes we see today. It is not something we observe today. Has anyone observed a dog change into anything other than a dog? Even when one hits fruitflies with radiation to mutate their DNA, does one get anything other than messed up or dead fruitflies? The fact that this is the kind of thing we observe is more consistent with biblical creation than with common descent.

As for the fossils, yes I do think they (or most of them) are the same age. You say this is ridiculous. Why don't you take me through the process of dating them step by step and we can discuss where I would take issue with the process.

Just saying the flood did not happen doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you say it. Again, if you want to discuss specifics, I am happy to do so but the generalizations are not helpful to either of us. So many of the people here say they are skeptics and freethinkers but never want to question current scientific thought, only Biblical thinking. Interesting.

I thought this kind of thinking went out with the ark....

But seriously it takes some serious self delusion to still believe in young earth creation.

And anyway, to see a process that takes thousands of years to happen TAKES THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF LOOKING.
To demand to see speciation in real time is cheating and you know it.
Major changes within a species have been observed happening, is it really such a stretch to say that over time the ability to mate goes and new species arise.

[solarwave]

I am a young earth creationist and think that the fossil record (or at least the bulk of it as I would not rule out some of it being the result of local catastrophic events) is a result of the flood of the Bible. God and the Bible as the word of God are my starting point for my analysis of reality. Observational science is really good for explaining the universe that God created and I have not seen nor heard of a scientific observation that would necessarily contradict the Bible. To a very large degree, historical science, particularly as it relates to origins, is taking observations and extrapolating to the unobserved past and, therefore, the conclusions reached by scientists will reflect their own bias and presuppositions. So insofar as the conclusions/interpretations made by these scientists conflict with the Bible...I will go with the Bible. I think that this world view explains reality better and is more consistent than any other world view. Are there still questions that I can't answer? Certainly, but I think there are unanswerable questions for any world view.

As for me I am a theistic evolutionist. The bible obviously needs to be interpreted in some way since if it wasn't one would get alot of funny ideas (eg: if you didnt read psalms knowing what poetry is it could be difficult). I also think that I should interpret the bible to the best of my knowledge, and this includes science. Science tells us the big bang happened and that the world is old therefore Genesis cannot be literal. For me I think there is much more meaning in Genesis if you dont take it literally.

I see what you are saying about extrapolating what they see now, but I think there is more to it then that. The big bang theory predicts what the universe should look like if it is true, and the universe does look like that prediction.

[rjh4 is back]

As for me I am a theistic evolutionist. The bible obviously needs to be interpreted in some way since if it wasn't one would get alot of funny ideas (eg: if you didnt read psalms knowing what poetry is it could be difficult). I also think that I should interpret the bible to the best of my knowledge, and this includes science.

When I first became a Christian, I thought a lot about theistic evolution. I do not hold to is as it seems to me to create inconsistencies. For example the Bible at Romans 5:12 seems to say that death came into the world because of Adam's sin. Theistic evolution seems to say that death existed long before man even entered on the the scene. How do you address such issues?

For me I think there is much more meaning in Genesis if you dont take it literally.

What do you mean?

[Darwinian]

The problem is that if you take Genesis to be actual truth simply because it is written in the bible then what about other factual errors such as...

Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."

There are 2 significant errors here, first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.

or..

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

or..

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Fowls do not go upon all fours

and finally..

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hare do not chew the cud.

You see, to me, these and others are clear examples that the Bible is not the inspired word of God but instead has been written by fallible humans who did not possess any knowledge that was not available at the time and in some cases obviously possessed less. Would God make such a basic mistake as calling the mustard seed the 'least' and saying that it would grow into a tree? No, of course not.

If the numerous authors of the Bible can make such basic and serious mistakes how on earth can they be trusted to answer some of the most profound and important questions accurately?

[Samson]

My beliefs are nearly identical to Matt's as well—at least, on the stuff of his I've read covering specific orthodoxy (e.g., soteriology, the branch of theology that deals with salvation).

Am I a literal Bible believer? It depends on what you mean by "literal"—an important point to consider (especially in this place) because the term is often used pejoratively rather than responsibly. To interpret the Bible literally involves scholarly hermeneutics, a responsible exegesis that is conscious of theological themes and the details of the historical, linguistic, and textual context. If we held "literal" in its often pejorative sense with consistency, then the Bible has nothing to say to anybody today because, for example, Paul's two letters to the Christians in Corinth were written, well, to those Christians in Corinth. Christians in other places would have to ignore the letters, and even those in Corinth would have to ignore them a generation later because they were written to their predecessors, not them. What is often meant by "literal" turns out to be silly and unsustainable.

The Bible means what it says, and it says what it means. That's basically how we take the Bible "literally." Historical accounts are taken "literally" as historical, theological expositions are taken "literally" as theological, poetic praises are taken "literally" as poetic, etc.

Truly my fault for not being more specific with the question I asked in, "Do you take the Bible literally". I was referring in means of today's "Christian" core belief.

I agree that it would take scholarly hermeneutics if one is trying to define literal meanings and passages to those who take the core belief literal, but I do not agree that it takes that to simply read the Bible and have a rational, logical opinion about what is read.

Anyone who throws the term, "You're not a scholar, so you don't know what you are talking about" is only trying to make something more complex/complicated. And when referring that to someone's belief in this particular manuscript, it fits like a glove. You can do the same with poetic writing and branch off a million interpretations of the poets meaning, but in the end, it's still an opinion of someones interpretation.

I understand what you are meaning in, "The Bible says what it means, and means what it says". But then you have "Scholars", like you brought up, trying to give you their interpretations of what the "Bible" is actually meaning. (And of course your ever day televangelist/preacher/priest etc. as well). Again, simply people trying to make the Bible more complicated than it actually is.

I'm not going to go into the silliness of asking you, "Do you believe in the tales of Noah's ark, Johannah and the Whale, Samson and Delilah, Sodom and Gomorrah, David and Goliath, Adam and Eve, Red Sea parting", etc. etc. etc. (I'm sure you know the stories by now)..

I will make this as simple as I can..."Do you believe in the "God" of the Christian Bible? Do you believe in Jesus and the Bible's breakdowns of his life, start to finish? Do you believe in a Hell from which the Bible has written? Do you believe in John's breakdowns of Revelation?

[rjh4 is back]

[Darwinian]

[solarwave]

When I first became a Christian, I thought a lot about theistic evolution. I do not hold to is as it seems to me to create inconsistencies. For example the Bible at Romans 5:12 seems to say that death came into the world because of Adam's sin. Theistic evolution seems to say that death existed long before man even entered on the the scene. How do you address such issues?

I take death there to mean spiritual death not physical death. I would guess before that everything was in relationship with God as it should be, but after the first sin spiritual death entered the world.

For me I think there is much more meaning in Genesis if you dont take it literally.

What do you mean?

The interpretation of Genesis now (which I read from Keith Ward) seems to have more meaning behind it than taking it literally. It tells us more about the world.