Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Killer Mike · 05-11-2005, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dryhad

What do you mean? Could you cite something? The story of creation is pretty clear, seven days with specific things happening each day. The only way for the bible to support evolution would be for something to completely and utterly contradict that (and demonstrate that, as all reasonable people have long ago realised, it's not a literal account of what happened). It doesn't strike me as something that would go unnoticed for so long. So, once again, what are you talking about?

Creationists (and evolutionists as well) dont even understand the Bible! The Genesis story is like a poem and was not intended as a creation story, rather a symbolic affirmation of monotheism. See "the meaning of creation" by professor Conrad Hyers. At the time Genesis was written Jewish monotheism was a relatively new arrival, but polytheistic Paganism was still widely practiced. At that time the earth, sun, stars, and even some human leaders were thought to be gods. So when genesis states in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth, what the writers were saying is that the heavens and earth are not gods for their is only one god. When genesis states that god made man, the writers were saying these men you think are gods are not gods at all, for their is only one god. So Genesis says nothing about the truth or untruth of evolution or a young earth. So to try and defend or refute genesis based on historical accuracy would be like taking a poem and trying to refute or prove it on its historical merits. Its an oxymoron because the writers of genesis were not concerned about "the creation" rather in conveying their belief that there is only one god.

Gnostradamus · 05-11-2005, 05:03 AM

Wow, you guys are fast. Thought I'd wait hours before a reply.

Quote:

Firstly, a very warm welcome to you, Gnostradamus!

Thank you

Quote:

Quote:
A proper understanding of the Biblical text reveals that there is not contradiction between the Biblical record of events and the findings of evolution.

Ah, "a proper understanding", eh? Trouble is, who's to say what is the proper one? Y'see, fundamentalist creationists think theirs is the proper one.

True, however their explanation fails to take into account various factors within the text. A proper understanding is one which explains various aspects of the text in the most cohesive manner.

Quote:

Quote:
Naturally such a proper understanding is not easy to come by as it necessitates a complete re-evaluation of the Biblical text.

"Re-evaluation", as in 're-ordering of the events', and a re-alisation that there is only really one 'kind', since all living things are related via descent with modification...?

Not a reordering. The Biblical text is but a piece of a greater whole. The other aspects of the whole need to be reintegrated before a proper understanding can be had.

Quote:

Quote:
And it seems unlikely that those here have much hands-on experience with the Bible itself.
I suspect you'll find you are rather wrong on that. Hint: please don't presuppose the experience and expertise of the posters here -- they will constantly surprise you.

Just trying to rile up the natives. I see by your rapid response that such an attempt was unnecessary.

Quote:

Tell you what: I'll listen to your story if you'll listen to the Inuit, Shinto, Aztec, Greek, Aborigine and Hindu ones, and can tell us why yours is the true one.

Ok. But I get to go first, right?

JPD · 05-11-2005, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostradamus

True, however their explanation fails to take into account various factors within the text. A proper understanding is one which explains various aspects of the text in the most cohesive manner.

You have the problem of whose view carries the most weight and why. "Cohesive manner" is as meaningful as "proper understanding".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostradamus

Ok. But I get to go first, right?

We're all ears.

Gnostradamus · 05-11-2005, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonersRock20

I guess a case could be made looking at Gen 1:11 and 1:24 where God says "let the Earth bring forth" plant life and animal life respectively?

But then we still have the problem that the Earth was created BEFORE the Sun which contridicts everything we know about astro physics. Come to think of it the Earth was created even before the "firmament" which presumably is all the rest of the universe?

Excellent points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Is this going to be another case of "day-age" apologetics, with the Sun and Moon "appearing when the atmosphere became transparent"?

Close, yes you guys are good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

Creationists (and evolutionists as well) dont even understand the Bible! The Genesis story is like a poem and was not intended as a creation story, rather a symbolic affirmation of monotheism. See "the meaning of creation" by professor Conrad Hyers. At the time Genesis was written Jewish monotheism was a relatively new arrival, but polytheistic Paganism was still widely practiced. At that time the earth, sun, stars, and even some human leaders were thought to be gods. So when genesis states in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth, what the writers were saying is that the heavens and earth are not gods for their is only one god. When genesis states that god made man, the writers were saying these men you think are gods are not gods at all, for their is only one god. So Genesis says nothing about the truth or untruth of evolution or a young earth. So to try and defend or refute genesis based on historical accuracy would be like taking a poem and trying to refute or prove it on its historical merits. Its an oxymoron because the writers of genesis were not concerned about "the creation" rather in conveying their belief that there is only one god.

Now this seems a good place to begin. Not that I completely agree or disagree with it, only that it raises some interesting issues.

Question: Why are there seven days of creation and why are the events that take place ordered as they are?

Dryhad · 05-11-2005, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

Creationists (and evolutionists as well) dont even understand the Bible! The Genesis story is like a poem and was not intended as a creation story, rather a symbolic affirmation of monotheism. See "the meaning of creation" by professor Conrad Hyers. At the time Genesis was written Jewish monotheism was a relatively new arrival, but polytheistic Paganism was still widely practiced. At that time the earth, sun, stars, and even some human leaders were thought to be gods. So when genesis states in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth, what the writers were saying is that the heavens and earth are not gods for their is only one god. When genesis states that god made man, the writers were saying these men you think are gods are not gods at all, for their is only one god. So Genesis says nothing about the truth or untruth of evolution or a young earth. So to try and defend or refute genesis based on historical accuracy would be like taking a poem and trying to refute or prove it on its historical merits. Its an oxymoron because the writers of genesis were not concerned about "the creation" rather in conveying their belief that there is only one god.

Yes, I get that. Hence my reference to "all reasonable people". Nonetheless, to put a stop to this literal nonsense one would have to prove it was simply poetic. All you've done is say that it is simply poetic.

Gnostrodamus, would you mind telling us what your brilliant revelation is? I'd very much like to hear it before I go to bed.

JPD · 05-11-2005, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostradamus

Question: Why are there seven days of creation and why are the events that take place ordered as they are?

What evidence supports a 7 day creation and the "ordering" of events?
Do you regard the Quran as being in error when it states that the earth and the heavens were created in six days? Why would it take God this long: this becomes more difficult when those days are considered to be of greater or indefinite duration than a 24 hour day.

Jet Black · 05-11-2005, 05:19 AM

come on people, turn this into an Evolution Creation Discussion. this is going slower than an Old Benoni defence.

Jet Black · 05-11-2005, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostradamus

Question: Why are there seven days of creation and why are the events that take place ordered as they are?

to take down the Sumerian Polytheistic Gods.

Gnostradamus · 05-11-2005, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

You have the problem of whose view carries the most weight and why. "Cohesive manner" is as meaningful as "proper understanding".

Well, let's see. Copernicus' theory explained planetary movement in a more "Cohesive manner" than Ptolemy's. Does that parse?

Oolon Colluphid · 05-11-2005, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostradamus

Wow, you guys are fast. Thought I'd wait hours before a reply.

We're fairly global. You'll have to wait a couple more hours for most of the Americans though

Quote:

Thank you

:thumbs:
One further note: this forum has a bit of a reputation as a piranha tank. We've seen most arguments before; in many cases, rather often. So you'll get bitten less often if you couch your ideas in terms of suggestions rather than assertions.

Quote:

True, however their explanation fails to take into account various factors within the text. A proper understanding is one which explains various aspects of the text in the most cohesive manner.

Fair enough, But I suppose our first question is, why should the creation tales of one group of Bronze Age Middle Eastern goatherders have any bearing on the truth of our origins? Why does it need a 'proper understanding' at all -- could God not speak plainly (and accurately) about the real events?

Quote:

Not a reordering.

What added context could possibly make correct the claim that God made angiosperm plants on the third day, which presumably has to be prior to the creation of animals on the fifth and sixth days? If 'creeping things' means insects and such, then it is plain wrong that whales came before them. What is this 'day' business about, if not showing some sort of chronological order?

Quote:

Just trying to rile up the natives. I see by your rapid response that such an attempt was unnecessary.

I wouldn't stir the tank if I were you... :devil3:

Quote:

Ok. But I get to go first, right?

Yep. ASAP please. Don't mean to rush you, it's just that, like I say, we've seen most things before, so there'll be a lot of second-guessing if you don't lay out your case quickly (if briefly at first).

Cheers, Oolon

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-11-2005, 05:19 AM	#17
Jet Black Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: (GSV) Lasting Damage Posts: 10,734	come on people, turn this into an Evolution Creation Discussion. this is going slower than an Old Benoni defence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.