Christians Proclaim "no Conflict"

Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3
4

Christians Proclaim "no Conflict"; between evolution and biblical creation
Tweet Topic Started: Feb 13 2006, 10:53 AM (897 Views)
abradf2519	Feb 16 2006, 03:43 PM Post #31
Member Posts: 1,317 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: November 19, 2004	cmoehle Feb 16 2006, 03:05 PM "God used his own voice as a tool to create the earth." Metaphorically speaking. Word (logos) is hardly limited to speech, or voice, but to thought, logic, reason, principle: As John 1:1 explains, In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Or, limited to voice, we're back at the anthropomorphic problem of who made Who in whose image. "Logos" is Greek. The transliterated Hebrew word for "said" is "amar" (from Genesis). The definition of "amar" is: Quote: to say, speak, utter (Qal) to say, to answer, to say in one's heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend (Niphal) to be told, to be said, to be called (Hithpael) to boast, to act proudly (Hiphil) to avow, to avouch In the NT, "logos" is used in the verses I provided, but in the septuigent (Greek OT) the word "said" from Genesis is translated "Ginomai" which means: Quote: to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen of events to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage of men appearing in public to be made, finished of miracles, to be performed, wrought to become, be made The NT writers used "logos" to mean "the words that God said" according to the context of the verses that I quoted.
	Alan Milan, New York, USA


cmoehle	Feb 16 2006, 03:45 PM Post #32
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	Alan "My problem is that people who find stuff like this diffcult to believe then say the creation story is a myth or an allegory." But that is what myth and allegory do, explain the unexplainable. "Why? because he cannot explain everything to us, we would not understand with our limited experience. He said he "spoke" the world into exsistance. How does this work? I don't know, and cannot explain it, but by Faith, I believe it." That's the purpose of myth and allegory, that is what they are. And metaphor. For example, God "explaining", he "spoke". Or God "thinks". "It is not written like a myth or an allegory, it is written as history." Huh? Then explain two Genesis "histories". Two histories would tell different stories and would thus have different meanings. Two myths could easily have the same meaning. "People want things both ways, they want to believe in God, but parts of the bible are too unbelievable to them, so they dismiss them as myth or allegory." Isn't it you who wants it both ways and dismiss myth? No one here has said anything about belief till now. Do you dismiss mainstream belief? Majority belief? And that just among Christians. "The problem with doing this is, what then exactly then is Christianity? For me, its simple. Christianity is defined in the bible. What God thinks about things is defined by the bible. Creation is documented in the bible. What is sin and what isn't sin is defined by the bible." So too if read as myth, as stories, as parables, as allegories. The problem with literal readings is reconciling two Genesis stories just to start off with. You also will have a devil of a time reconciling that with the fact words are symbols, not the things they reference. And then there's ambiguity. Literal reading loses a lot of meaning. "If you don't take the literal parts of the bible as literal and the allegoracle parts are allegory, then what is true about God and what isn't? Denominations then take it upon themselves to define what Chistianity is to them, and then the slippery slope appears, and they end up virually believing in nothing. When someone does something evil..." Ah, yes, Christianity's Achilles Heal. In a schismatic religion like Christianity concerned as it is with personal salvation, that is what you are ultimately left with, individual interpretation. "This is why some people can say Christianity justified Hitler, because they don't see the bible as being the source of what Christianity is. The bible most certainly condems the acts of Hitler, and if he believed that the bible was the word of God, he could not have used Christianity to justify what he did." "Christianity justified Hitler"? That is something you came up with, no one else said it. Convenient straw man for the rest of your argument? What was said back then was Hitler was a part of Christianity. Christianity has a long history of bigotry and hatred towards Jews. Now what does this have to do with evolution?
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


brewster	Feb 16 2006, 04:03 PM Post #33
Winemaker Extraordinaire Posts: 3,467 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: June 21, 2004	Quote: If you don't take the literal parts of the bible as literal and the allegoracle parts are allegory, then what is true about God and what isn't? Let's see if we can determine what is true... The first thing that a person can discover in any thorough read of the Bible is that in any verse where God was quoted directly (There were no scribes in early Genesis, so any "quotes" could only be guesses) God never said anything about science at all! In any place where God's (or Christ's) words are quoted, the words are describing actions and laws to live by, or a philosophy of life. Quote: He said he "spoke" the world into exsistance. He said nothing of the sort. Whoever wrote the words, be it Moses or some other, may have been "inspired" by God, but made no claim that they are actually God's words. The earliest parts of the Bible, was written by a non-scientific person trying as best he could to describe the world and Man's place in it. The rest, and in particular the Old Testament, is a documentary on Man's struggle to come to terms with man's selfish nature within the rules as handed down. So what is true about God? Read His quoted words! It's how people LIVE that matters! Denominations need the Bible to help define how to live and how to treat others. Denominations that try to do more than that, squeezing some sort of rigid world view out of a primitive people's limited vision, are the ones on a slippery slope, in my opinion.
	My Favourite Campsite Bow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta


TexasShadow	Feb 16 2006, 04:35 PM Post #34
Jane Posts: 5,534 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: June 26, 2004	well stated, Brew
	"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."


CalRed	Feb 16 2006, 11:28 PM Post #35
Member Posts: 1,087 Group: Members Member #128 Joined: November 30, 2004	Quote: Huh? Then explain two Genesis "histories". Two histories would tell different stories and would thus have different meanings. Two myths could easily have the same meaning. Chris Could you explain what you say are "two histories?" You keep saying that but I can't find the discrepancy.
	Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage


cmoehle	Feb 17 2006, 05:44 AM Post #36
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	Cal, first off, "histories" is Alan's word for the two creation myths. My argument is that they are not historie but myths. Second off, you are certainly knowledgable enough about the Bible to know there are two creation stories. And I am certain you have a typical argument to deny the discrepancies. Have you read the text of the article yet and seen it's about more than 26 people in a picture in a church? Do you see now where the Catholic Church, and thus a majority of Christians, have accepted evolution? Presbyterians too. And many other Protestants.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


TexasShadow	Feb 17 2006, 06:01 AM Post #37
Jane Posts: 5,534 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: June 26, 2004	CalRed It has long been accepted by bible scholars that there are two creation stories, placed back to back..... and two Flood stories woven together.
	"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."


CalRed	Feb 17 2006, 06:55 AM Post #38
Member Posts: 1,087 Group: Members Member #128 Joined: November 30, 2004	Quote: Cal, first off, "histories" is Alan's word for the two creation myths. My argument is that they are not historie but myths. Second off, you are certainly knowledgable enough about the Bible to know there are two creation stories. And I am certain you have a typical argument to deny the discrepancies. Then it should be very easy for you to tell me about them. I would like to know what you consider discrepancies. I see none so I asked you to point them out. Is that very hart to do?
	Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage


cmoehle	Feb 17 2006, 07:56 AM Post #39
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	Like Jane says, long been accepted their are two creation stories, and two flood stories and.... You know all that. We have discussed this before. Why adopt a know-nothing stance? That doesn't promote the exchange of opinions, now does it? You want discrepancies. Let me say, clearly, they exist only in literal readings. Reading the stories as myths, as I do, none exist because such details are unimportant to the message. Myths, as you know, are stylistic devices used to convey things like " God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence...." Literal discrepancies. Here's a good summary. Why is the first story placed second? It was written later than the first (see first row). And, please, let's not stoop to attacking the messenger, the table is common knowledge.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


Photobitstream	Feb 17 2006, 08:47 AM Post #40
Darron - Austin, TX Posts: 1,025 Group: Members Member #229 Joined: December 15, 2005	I think Douglas Adams got it right in the preface to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely regarded as a bad move and has made many people very angry."
	"Their chief weapon, however, was their capacity to astonish. Nobody else could believe, until it was much too late, just how heartless and greedy they actually were." Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions


CalRed	Feb 17 2006, 09:28 AM Post #41
Member Posts: 1,087 Group: Members Member #128 Joined: November 30, 2004	The alleged discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2 doesn't actually exist, not in reality, only in someone's mind. in Chapter 1, �And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them� (vv. 26-27). Obviously that is a general statement of the beginning of the human family. It says God was the Creator of the human family. Man was fashioned in the image and likeness of God (a spiritual likeness). Humanity was created male and female. Man and woman were given dominion over all the subordinate creations. There are more details in Chapter 2 for an obvious reason. Chapter 2 places a greater emphasis upon the origin of the human family. There is no conflict between the two chapters. Chapter 2 supplements the first one. While many people claim different Creation narratives,l it is clear there is a strictly complimentary nature of the two chapters. Genesis one mentions the creation of man as the last in a series while Genesis two makes man the center of interest therefore more specific details are given. There is no incompatible duplication at all. If you don't recognize the complimentary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeletal outline of all creation on one hand and the concentration in detail on man and his environment on the other then that borders on obscurantism. The alleged discrepancy does not exist. Liberal critics of the Bible have for centuries asserted that the book of Genesis contains two accounts of the creation. They claim different authorship, therefore different time periods, etc. This theory is called the Documentary Hypothesis and will not beat an honest scholarly investigation.
	Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage


Photobitstream	Feb 17 2006, 09:34 AM Post #42
Darron - Austin, TX Posts: 1,025 Group: Members Member #229 Joined: December 15, 2005	Cal, an honest scholarly investigation will reveal that almost everything in the Bible was taken from earlier mythologies.
	"Their chief weapon, however, was their capacity to astonish. Nobody else could believe, until it was much too late, just how heartless and greedy they actually were." Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions


CalRed	Feb 17 2006, 09:45 AM Post #43
Member Posts: 1,087 Group: Members Member #128 Joined: November 30, 2004	Can you prove that statement?
	Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage


cmoehle	Feb 17 2006, 10:30 AM Post #44
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	Cal "Genesis one mentions the creation of man as the last in a series while Genesis two makes man the center of interest therefore more specific details are given. There is no incompatible duplication at all. If you don't recognize the complimentary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeletal outline of all creation on one hand and the concentration in detail on man and his environment on the other then that borders on obscurantism." Thank you for supporting my contention. Your interpretation is one of the least literal readings I've ever encountered. As I said, read as myth, there is one message. Read literally, they cannot complement a single message--there is no way you can have man last in one literal history and man first in another literal history and claim a single message. And that's just looking at a single literal discrepancy of the many listed. What we have is myth attempting to explain mystery, as in " God to me is a mystery...". As for your question of proof to Darron, Cal, you don't subscribe to the old fallacy that if he cannot satisfy you with a proof therefore your belief is by default true without proof, do you? That's the same fallacy fundamentalists use to argue creationism over evolution: One must be true, you can't prove evolution, therefore creationism is true. Not too many fall for that anymore.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


Photobitstream	Feb 17 2006, 10:39 AM Post #45
Darron - Austin, TX Posts: 1,025 Group: Members Member #229 Joined: December 15, 2005	CalRed Feb 17 2006, 09:45 AM Can you prove that statement? Have you bothered to study earlier mythologies such as Zorastarism or Mithrasim? Click the link I provided and spend a few hours reading. After all, you're the one who brought up honest scholarly investigation. Practice some of that then come back. If you're only going to read one article I suggest Myth Making in the Bible and the Ancient Near East: The Yahwist Primeval Creation Myth by Tim Langille. Quote: The Yahwist author is undeniably a literary genius whose work still echoes loudly, thousands of years after composition. The Yahwist drew together elements from Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other great literary works of his ancient Near Eastern neighbours, and then fused them in a unique manner. Be forewarned this link leads to a 12-page PDF, so be prepared for the download time. This is but one honest scholarly investigation available on the Internet. I'll provide links to more if you give me your word you will take the time to study them with an open mind.
	"Their chief weapon, however, was their capacity to astonish. Nobody else could believe, until it was much too late, just how heartless and greedy they actually were." Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

Create your own social network with a free forum. Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4