Posted on 01/27/2009 10:41:55 AM PST by smokingfrog
Why I believe what I do? Besides how I understand science, I see God, as I was raised to see Him: As the Creator of a universe that is billions of years old, subtle and marvelous in how seemingly simple systems can develop remarkable complexity, so that from a single-celled creature, creatures in the Image of God may arise. I see a universe of just not human beings, but of thousands, maybe millions of intelligent species, all in the Image of God, all praising God in their own ways and God enjoying the praise from each and every one of them.
That is how I imagine God, who I worship.
In comparison, the god (I can hardly call it "God") of creationism is puny thing, having created only 6000 years of history and one species to praise him and having done so with all the grace of a cow turd.
I don't believe that any mortal can imagine more than God can create. I don't imagine God would create a universe that did not encompass as much as He could put in it. If the imagination of a mortal scientist is more spectacular than God's creation, then shame on God.
I believe that God is better than that.
And the word of God says that He is better than that. It says that a thousand of years to us is like a few hours (a watch in the night) to Him -- that God's experience of time is different than ours. A "day" of God is not a day of a human species.
So why don't you accept the word of God for what it says in its entirety, rather than just a few isolated sentences, and see how much grander than mere creationism God's universe is?
The word of God, in its entirety, says only man is made in God’s image, not all of creation.
The word of God, in its entirety, references the creation account as true, not just in the beginning of Genesis.
Scientists do not now, nor have they ever, imagined better than God. They imagine wrongly, sometimes, but not better.
“In comparison, the god (I can hardly call it “God”) of creationism is puny thing, having created only 6000 years of history and one species to praise him and having done so with all the grace of a cow turd.”
The above quote is vile. Creating the entire universe in six days is puny? Are you for real?
And all of creation praises Him, not just mankind.
Psalm 69:34 “Let heaven and earth praise Him, the seas and everything that moves in them.”
I think you are just making it up as you go along. I see little Biblical evidence for any of your ideas.
“For since the CREATION of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
because,
although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish harts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man - and birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies, among themselves, who exchanged the TRUTH OF GOD FOR THE LIE, and worshipped and serve the creature RATHER THAN THE CREATOR, who is blessed forever. Amen.” (Romans 2:20-25, emphasis added).
Where is the biblical evidence for evolution? If you were raised to see God as a Creator of a universe that is billions of years old and started from a single cell, you were also raised to disregard the consummate teaching of how God made the world that runs throughout the Bible and is only reinforced, never contradicted.
Of course they haven't. And since what is in scientists' imaginations is grander and better than what is in the creationist viewpoint, then creationism cannot be what God did.
"Where is the Biblical evidence for evolution?" you ask. Genesis 2:7. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground." The word translated as "formed" is more specific in Hebrew. It is the term for a potter forming clay into a vessel.
A potter does not throw clay down and have it instantly take the form he wants. He molds it, shaping it through intermediate shapes, until it takes the form he wants. So man started at formlessness and evolved through intermediate forms, until he reached the form God intended for us.
Genesis 2:7, in the original, as God wrote it, describes evolution.
Then you start finding details. Per the theory of evolution, when man evolved from the ape-like creature that preceded him, he lost a rib. With the loss of a rib, man became civilized. So the Bible says, the civilizing influence of man was formed of a rib.
If I could read the Bible in its original languages, I'm sure I would find more.
In any case, if God created in six days, then yes, that is puny. For what is 6 days of praise, compared to billions of years of praise? And if the stars and all the heavens praise God, the certainly so does any life that exists around them.
If that is exchanging the truth for the lie -- if that condemns me -- so be it. If my pitiable imagination is that much greater than creation, then the creator is a disappointment, who does not deserve anyone's worship.
I don't worship puny-minded gods. And that is what the FALSE god of creationism, in the face of science and understanding of the Bible.
If nothing else, I can’t be accused of being an “atheist evolutionist.”
“A potter does not throw clay down and have it instantly take the form he wants. He molds it, shaping it through intermediate shapes, until it takes the form he wants.”
No, but God, being perfect, does. He needs not rely upon eons of small mutations. He said “Let there be light,” and there was light. Before He made the sun, mind you!
He could have told us differently. He could have said,
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, so he caused a giant explosion to separate matter from anti-matter. As the universe continued to expand, He caused a random DNA mutation on this planet to form a single, living cell. He caused this cell to split into two, and after several thousand years, a chance mutation that was actually biologically viable occurred. Both types of cell life coexisted for a hundred thousand years, and then. . .”
If that’s what He did, why did He not just say so? The Bible is His to write. Why say He made man, in his entirety, on the sixth day, and rested the seventh day? What does that mean?
The sabbath rest is the entire reason for the 4th commandment. The creation in six days, with the seventh for rest, is given as the reason for the Jews to work six days, then rest the seventh. What sort of reason would millions of years of evolution make for a resting time every seventh day of the week?
Jesus said that God made one man for one woman in the Garden when He taught against divorce. If we were slowly mutating from apes, with all the multiple sexual partners and lack of marriage and so forth in the animal sphere, what sort of reason would the creation of Adam and Eve be for arguing against divorce?
Who were Adam and Eve in your world view, anyway?
No, but God, being perfect, does. He needs not rely upon eons of small mutations. He said “Let there be light,” and there was light. Before He made the sun, mind you!
If God had created man in an instant, He would have described it that way. He chose to describe it using a term that invokes formlessness gradually taking a desired form. The instant act of "Let there be light!" corresponds rather well with the Big Bang of modern cosmology, BTW.
Who were Adam and Eve in your world view, anyway?
Adam was the first man to be recognizably human in some specific, probably spiritual or intellectual, way. A friend of mine has suggested that as God told Moses that His name was "I Am That I Am" that Adam was the first to realize "I am," thus becoming the image of God. That works for me. Eve remains the female civilizing influence -- the lost rib that civilized man.
BTW, this also allows Cain (and Adam and Eve's other children) to have spouses without incest. They were other at least genetic humans -- quite possibly, though not necessarily, others who had also learned, "I Am" from Adam.
“A friend of mine has suggested that as God told Moses that His name was “I Am That I Am” that Adam was the first to realize “I am,”
Well, it all comes down to suggestion and ideas, if you don’t want to take the Bible at its word.
“Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (Gen 1:31)
This “invokes formlessness gradually taking a desired form?
Well, it all comes down to suggestion and ideas, if you don’t want to take the Bible at its word.
First off, unless you know the original languages, you're not taking the Bible at its word. You're taking it at the translators' words.
And no matter how good the translators are, details and subtlety are lost in translation. I mentioned the potter implication in the Hebrew translated as "formed." There's also a distinct oddity about this world: God uses a unique spelling: Everywhere else, the Hebrew is V-Y-Ts-R; in Genesis 2:7 God spells it V-Y-Y-Ts-R.
Jewish commentary is that this is because God created man with two spirits, good and evil, while animals were formed with only one -- this being before the Apple or even Eve. But whatever God's reason for this, it is something that is lost in translation. Unless you know of an English translation that spells form, "forrm" at that point.
But even if the translation is perfectly accurate or we know the original languages fluently, what is taking the Bible at its word?
We read with the background and baggage of our lives. To take a less controversial passage, when I was a pre-schooler, first hearing or reading that Cain "builded a city," I pictured a modern city like Buffalo or NYC. It wasn't for at least a few years before I got something more like archeologists dig up. Even so, some African tribesman encountering the Bible for the first time would have some other idea of "city." So would some medieval European child. So would some Iberian-born, Judea-station, Roman soldier in the time of Jesus.
God must have known that we experience His word differently when he wrote Cain "builded a city" for his son. Certainly God knew that we would experience "formed man" differently, when he wrote V-Y-Y-Ts-R. With my background of a family of scientists, taking God at His word is consistent with modern scientific interpretation. That He formed man like a potter, by a gradual process, is taking him at his word. Taking Him at his word is that He experiences time differently than I do and that, as the Author, writing about creation from His point of view, it is written from His sense of time.
“Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (Gen 1:31)
This “invokes formlessness gradually taking a desired form?
It invokes nothing with regard to method, one way or another.
BTW, this also allows Cain (and Adam and Eve's other children) to have spouses without incest. They were other at least genetic humans -- quite possibly, though not necessarily, others who had also learned, "I Am" from Adam.
Sorry, but you seem to be all over the place here. If Adam was already in possession of spiritual and/or intellectual awareness, Then in what way is that not being civilized. Adam was already communicating with God, following his orders, and behaving in a civil and respectful manner before Eve ever came into the picture. In fact, one could argue exactly the opposite of your proposition since it was Eve who first disobeyed God and influenced Adam accordingly.
Second, if Cain and the rest of Adam and Eve's children were able to recognize their own kind, then why didn't Adam also recognize his own kind when God brought every living creature before him.
Third, since Eve was created directly from Adam's flesh, then this would make them related in the first order and compatible with the definition of incest. In fact, whether one subscribes to evolution or Judeo/Christian philosophy, such events, or relationships are necessary.
Unless God simply spoke man into existence, as he did with light, then any "forming" or "creation" of man is by definition a gradual process. To equate, or consider this analogous to evolutionary mechanisms, and especially, transitions from one distinct form to many other distinct forms over billions of years is a stretch as far as I'm concerned. Specific to the word in question, Strongs Hebrew definitions does include an interpretation to a "potter" as you suggest, but there is also no implication of a gradual process. If that was truly the important point that God wanted to relay, then one would think that such a concept would be implied by the many definitions in the word itself, Unfortunately for you it does not.
Here is the word in question:
3335 yatsar yaw-tsar'
probably identical with 3334 (through the squeezing into shape); ((compare 3331)); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively, to determine (i.e. form a resolution):--X earthen, fashion, form, frame, make(- r), potter, purpose. see HEBREW for 03334 see HEBREW for 03331
It seems to me the deliberative, and personal nature of the act is tantamount, rather than any temporal correlation it may have.
You're free to believe what you want, but from my perspective, I think your reasoning is seriously flawed.
You nor I nor most people on earth today know original Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or Aramaic. We trust the translators. We all know what the accepted texts are, which have been exhaustively, and I mean exhaustively, examined for thousands of years.
No translator questions the interpretation of Genesis 1. Or of the commandments, or of Jesus’ teaching on divorce, which you don’t seem to want to address.
The ten or so words in all of Scripture that are relatively unknown (what is “selah” in the Psalms? What is a leviathan? how do you pronounce YHWH?”) do not affect the doctrine of creation, or any other essential Christian doctrine.
Not all translators believe it to be God’s word, of course. I know that. But they don’t argue about whether “day” means “Epoch” or “YHWH” means “Baal” or whatever. There is no dispute.
The Bible passes the internal test. It does not contradict itself.
The Bible passes the external test. No other ancient documents or archeological evidence contradicts it. References in other ancient literature to people, places and events recorded in Scripture abound, and are upheld. Archeology upholds it.
If your theory is correct - if ancient men found the notion of six day creation believable, but modern man gets to re-interpret it to satisfy his understand of science -
then we can all re-interpret whenever convenient.
If I were a homosexual, I could say that the Levitical law was ancient law for an ancient people. We have progressed. It’s mentioned in the New Testament, but you know, that was just for promiscuous homosexual sex. It’s ok if I’m in a committed relationship. And hey, I believe the Bible is the Word of God.
If I want to divorce my husband, I could say that the Old Testament teaching on divorce was an ancient law for when people were much more dependent on each other than they are now. I am able to provide for myself now. Sure it says “God hates divorce,” but that just means He hates all the pain I am in right now. He’s sorry I need to do it. Jesus’ teaching? Well, he was a Jew, bound by the law. Am I not free? And hey, I believe the Bible is the Word of God.
Do you see that mincing around the straight Biblical teaching on any subject leads to grave error? We could shred anything if we set our minds to it.
Aww, jeez, did I write that? I meant paramount, not tantamount. I've got to stop staying up so late...
Since when is a prominent figure receiving “hate mail” newsworthy? They all get that. Slow news day?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.