Old Earth and Original Sin

[glad4mercy]

Perhaps Jemand is the Galileo to your Bellarmine?

Except that there is nothing in the Bible that went contrary to Galileo's teachings. The belief in geocentricity did not originate in the church, but in ancient civilizations that preceeded the church, including Greece in it's philosphies. People werent against heliocentricity on a biblical basis, ( even Bellarmine said that there needed to be further research before accepting it or condemning it), they accepted geocentricity because that was the prevailing view for centuries, and the Geocentric view did not originate in Christianity but preceeded it by centuries.

Unlike Copernicus, this teaching that the earth is billions of years old necessitates either denying scripture ( atheism), adding to scripture ( gap theory) , or turning scripture into allegory or myth. Genesis 1 says that God created the world in six days. Now we know that the word "Day" does not necessarily mean 24 hours, yet we also have the additionally statements " and the evening and the morning were the first day, second day, etc. So now if we want to believe that the earth took billions of years to form, we have to not only change the meaning of days, but we also have to change the meaning of evening and morning.

On top of this, it says that God made Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. So we change the meaning of this verse as well. We also have the Divine institution marriage in Genesis 2, yet now we are going to say this is a myth as well? What of the fall? Did all men fall in Adam, or is this a myth as well? In one fell swoop, the statement that "Genesis 1-11 is a myth" undermines the vital doctrines of the nature of man, the institution of marriage, and how sin came into the world. And on and on it goes.

The modern theologians are turning the first 11 chapters of Genesis into myth. Did Galileo do this? Did Copernicus? Go ahead and do your science things, and come to whatever conclusion you want, but trying to mold the bible, and cut off pieces of the Bible or explain them away in some fashion in order to make the Bible conform to your scientific hypothesis just doesnt sit well with me.

[Athanasius]

Except that there is nothing in the Bible that went contrary to Galileo's teachings.

You know what they say about hindsight.

If this were the 17th century you'd be arguing that (1) every day experience, (2) science / philosophy and (3) Scripture were in favour of geocentrism, and I imagine you would argue the point as hard as you're arguing the point today. Today you have an issue with the age of the earth and the meaning of Genesis; in the 17th century you might say that heliocentrism (1) removes the importance of humanity, for we are no longer at the center of the cosmos; (2) adds to Scripture through means of scientific inquiry (not always a problem, but it would seem that the 17th century Church, having to deal with the Reformation, largely ignored Augustinian thought), and (3) treats certain Scripture, such as Isaiah, as allegory / myth / non-literal. Oh, and don't forget (4), proves that the infallible Church is fallible after all.

That is only to point out that parallels exist, and you likely would not have said, had you been born in the 16th or 17th centuries, that "there is nothing in the bible that goes against heliocentrism". Are people going to say the same of us, four hundred years from now? It's interesting to consider.

[glad4mercy]

You know what they say about hindsight.

If this were the 17th century you'd be arguing that (1) every day experience, (2) science / philosophy and (3) Scripture were in favour of geocentrism, and I imagine you would argue the point as hard as you're arguing the point today. Today you have an issue with the age of the earth and the meaning of Genesis; in the 17th century you might say that heliocentrism (1) removes the importance of humanity, for we are no longer at the center of the cosmos; (2) adds to Scripture through means of scientific inquiry (not always a problem, but it would seem that the 17th century Church, having to deal with the Reformation, largely ignored Augustinian thought), and (3) treats certain Scripture, such as Isaiah, as allegory / myth / non-literal. Oh, and don't forget (4), proves that the infallible Church is fallible after all.

That is only to point out that parallels exist, and you likely would not have said, had you been born in the 16th or 17th centuries, that "there is nothing in the bible that goes against heliocentrism". Are people going to say the same of us, four hundred years from now? It's interesting to consider.

I have considered these thoughts in the past, but the statement that the earth is billions of years old has a greater potential for leading to serious error than the position of earth and sun etc. If a billion year old earth leads to a modified Darwinism, I believe it is a serious departure. When we say that Genesis 1-11 are mythical, it affects essential truths, like the nature of man, the institution of marriage, the fall of man and the reason why man is in the state he is in, and man's need for redemption. In this way, I believe that asserting that Genesis 1-11 is mythical will open a pandoras box. That's the way I see it.

I spoke my mind, and that is all I can do. It is not my job to convince you or anyone else. I believe that mythologizing Genesis 1-11 will create serious departures in other aspects of doctrine, so I am merely warning people in regards to something that I see as potentially dangerous.

[Jemand]

I have considered these thoughts in the past, but the statement that the earth is billions of years old has a greater potential for leading to serious error than the position of earth and sun etc. If a billion year old earth leads to a modified Darwinism, I believe it is a serious departure. When we say that Genesis 1-11 are mythical, it affects essential truths, like the nature of man, the institution of marriage, the fall of man and the reason why man is in the state he is in, and man's need for redemption. In this way, I believe that asserting that Genesis 1-11 is mythical will open a pandoras box. That's the way I see it.

I spoke my mind, and that is all I can do. It is not my job to convince you or anyone else. I believe that mythologizing Genesis 1-11 will create serious departures in other aspects of doctrine, so I am merely warning people in regards to something that I see as potentially dangerous.

The truth about the age and the earth and the evidence for evolution are harmless and, as I have proven in post after post, have no affect whatsoever upon the either the truth or the efficacy of the gospel. Darwin and many other people, however, lost their faith in the gospel because it was taught to them embedded in a severely incorrect interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis that, when proven to be unsound, caused them to believe that the gospel is not true. When the gospel is kept pure and uncontaminated by false teachings, it is just as powerful today as it was when it came directly from the mouth of Jesus.

[glad4mercy]

The truth about the age and the earth and the evidence for evolution are harmless and, as I have proven in post after post, have no affect whatsoever upon the either the truth or the efficacy of the gospel. Darwin and many other people, however, lost their faith in the gospel because it was taught to them embedded in a severely incorrect interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis that, when proven to be unsound, caused them to believe that the gospel is not true. When the gospel is kept pure and uncontaminated by false teachings, it is just as powerful today as it was when it came directly from the mouth of Jesus.

Ok, Jemand. Would you care to answer a couple more questions for me?

1. Do you think man evolved from a lower primate, or was he made in the image of God?
2. Did we inherit a sinful nature from Adam?
3. How was marriage instituted? Please explain how God revealed the institution of marriage to us.

I will decide in my own heart whether or not I believe that your doctrine of mythologizing Genesis 1-11 is harmless based on the answers you give to the three questions above. I will you not challenge your answers, if I disagree with them I will simply bow out of this discussion. On the other hand, if you can give me a biblical answer to these questions that can be backed up by scripture, it will go a long way in convincing me that your position is according to sound doctrine.

[WSGAC]

Ok, Jemand. Would you care to answer a couple more questions for me?

1. Do you think man evolved from a lower primate, or was he made in the image of God?
2. Did we inherit a sinful nature from Adam?
3. How was marriage instituted? Please explain how God revealed the institution of marriage to us.

I will decide in my own heart whether or not I believe that your doctrine of mythologizing Genesis 1-11 is harmless based on the answers you give to the three questions above. I will you not challenge your answers, if I disagree with them I will simply bow out of this discussion. On the other hand, if you can give me a biblical answer to these questions that can be backed up by scripture, it will go a long way in convincing me that your position is according to sound doctrine.

If man evolved over millions of years, or was created instantaneously out of a clump of sod, either way he comes from the "dust of the earth." What is so objectionable to a long-time process of creation? Look out in the night sky! You see nurseries of stars, just coming into life (of course star time is a lot longer than man time). If God decides to create life on planets orbitting these stars in another billion years, would that really unhinge your Genesis interpretation?

[glad4mercy]

If man evolved over millions of years, or was created instantaneously out of a clump of sod, either way he comes from the "dust of the earth." What is so objectionable to a long-time process of creation? Look out in the night sky! You see nurseries of stars, just coming into life (of course star time is a lot longer than man time). If God decides to create life on planets orbitting these stars in another billion years, would that really unhinge your Genesis interpretation?

Thanks for the insight, but you only answered question 1 partially and you did not even attempt to answer the other two. So I take it that you think man evolved from a lower primate, is that so? If so, that answers my first question, and I will just agree to respectfully disagree with you and leave it at that. Now, can you give a biblically based answer to questions 2 and 3?

[Athanasius]

Ok, Jemand. Would you care to answer a couple more questions for me?

1. Do you think man evolved from a lower primate, or was he made in the image of God?
2. Did we inherit a sinful nature from Adam?
3. How was marriage instituted? Please explain how God revealed the institution of marriage to us.

I will decide in my own heart whether or not I believe that your doctrine of mythologizing Genesis 1-11 is harmless based on the answers you give to the three questions above. I will you not challenge your answers, if I disagree with them I will simply bow out of this discussion. On the other hand, if you can give me a biblical answer to these questions that can be backed up by scripture, it will go a long way in convincing me that your position is according to sound doctrine.

If I were a convinced adherent to theistic evolution, I would answer...

1. Both.
2. Yes.
3. As it's described in Genesis 2.

[WSGAC]

Suppose you are a history teacher with 100 students in your college level class. You give them an assignment of writing a research paper of 25-30 pages in length, on any particular subject they choose, but show original research and show sources through footnotes and bibliography.

Now suppose all the papers have been turned in and you find two papers that are not only on the same subject matter, but they are nearly identical. The titles are identical, the wording is identical, the footnotes and bibliography are identical. Except for a few differences such as spelling and punctuation, and an occasional sentence whose word order is changed, the papers are 96% identical.

What would you conclude?

a) One student copied from the other?
b) both students colluded and wrote the same paper, hoping teacher wouldn't notice?
c) both were plagiarised from a prior original?
d) other?

Whatever your answer, you would have to concede that the uncanny resemblance each had to the other was not the result of blind chance. Something is going on here!

Did you know that Chimpanzee DNA is 96% identical to human DNA?

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmmm!"

[Athanasius]

The evolution of two species, analogous to the papers of two fictional students? Pretty sure there's a reason those analogies aren't use by professional philosophers Or as Dawkins might say: "It only appears to be designed".

The chimpanzee number is interesting, and I believe more recent numbers put it between 96 - 99% similarity, which still does not account for a few million difference in the DNA between species (I believe the higher number being about 40 million differences at only 96% similarity, and that is with scientists ignoring supposed 'junk DNA'). I also believe chimpanzee DNA is larger than human DNA, by about 12%? The numbers, at least, aren't as clear as the reports would have us believe. And in any case, similarity is not common origin. It's a fine hypothesis to say that the similar suggests a common ancestor, but another thing entirely to provide empirical proof, much less navigate around the philosophical issues.

Suppose you are a history teacher with 100 students in your college level class. You give them an assignment of writing a research paper of 25-30 pages in length, on any particular subject they choose, but show original research and show sources through footnotes and bibliography.

Now suppose all the papers have been turned in and you find two papers that are not only on the same subject matter, but they are nearly identical. The titles are identical, the wording is identical, the footnotes and bibliography are identical. Except for a few differences such as spelling and punctuation, and an occasional sentence whose word order is changed, the papers are 96% identical.

What would you conclude?

a) One student copied from the other?
b) both students colluded and wrote the same paper, hoping teacher wouldn't notice?
c) both were plagiarised from a prior original?
d) other?

Whatever your answer, you would have to concede that the uncanny resemblance each had to the other was not the result of blind chance. Something is going on here!

Did you know that Chimpanzee DNA is 96% identical to human DNA?

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmmm!"

[glad4mercy]

If I were a convinced adherent to theistic evolution, I would answer...

1. Both.
2. Yes.
3. As it's described in Genesis 2.

.

On questions 2-3 we are in agreement. Therefore it does not appear that you hold Genesis 1-11 to be myth as Jemand does. This is the issue that I am mainly disagreeing with. If you want to believe in evolution, that's up to you, I personally don't, but I won't argue with you about it. Yet when someone says that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth, I cant go along with that. Nevertheless, I'm not going to spend any more time debating it, I've already said my peace, as has Jemand, so let everyone be convinced in their own minds.

[glad4mercy]

Suppose you are a history teacher with 100 students in your college level class. You give them an assignment of writing a research paper of 25-30 pages in length, on any particular subject they choose, but show original research and show sources through footnotes and bibliography.

Now suppose all the papers have been turned in and you find two papers that are not only on the same subject matter, but they are nearly identical. The titles are identical, the wording is identical, the footnotes and bibliography are identical. Except for a few differences such as spelling and punctuation, and an occasional sentence whose word order is changed, the papers are 96% identical.

What would you conclude?

a) One student copied from the other?
b) both students colluded and wrote the same paper, hoping teacher wouldn't notice?
c) both were plagiarised from a prior original?
d) other?

Whatever your answer, you would have to concede that the uncanny resemblance each had to the other was not the result of blind chance. Something is going on here!

Did you know that Chimpanzee DNA is 96% identical to human DNA?

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmmm!"

Yes it makes me go Hmmmmm both human and chimp are made by the same creator. Similarities do not necessarily mean common ancestor, it is more likely that it is demonstrating a common creator.

Do chimps have a soul? Can they be saved? Did Jesus come to seek and to save lost chimps? Did God create chimps in His own image? One of the problems with our world today is that many people cannot discern the difference between man and beast, so we end up acting like beasts instead of acting like we are created in God's image.

[Athanasius]

.

On questions 2-3 we are in agreement. Therefore it does not appear that you hold Genesis 1-11 to be myth as Jemand does. This is the issue that I am mainly disagreeing with. If you want to believe in evolution, that's up to you, I personally don't, but I won't argue with you about it. Yet when someone says that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth, I cant go along with that. Nevertheless, I'm not going to spend any more time debating it, I've already said my peace, as has Jemand, so let everyone be convinced in their own minds.

I'm not convinced of evolution: I'm just answering your questions. And 'myth' does not mean fictional, e.g. the 'myth of Genesis 1 -11 can teach, very literally, the origin of sin and marriage.

[Jemand]

.

On questions 2-3 we are in agreement. Therefore it does not appear that you hold Genesis 1-11 to be myth as Jemand does. This is the issue that I am mainly disagreeing with. If you want to believe in evolution, that's up to you, I personally don't, but I won't argue with you about it. Yet when someone says that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth, I cant go along with that. Nevertheless, I'm not going to spend any more time debating it, I've already said my peace, as has Jemand, so let everyone be convinced in their own minds.

I have NEVER said nor implied that I hold Genesis 1-11 to be a myth. Furthermore, I do not know of any Old Testament scholars who believe that Genesis 1-11 is a myth. Therefore, the issue that you are mainly disagreeing with is an issue that you yourself made up out of thin air!

My actual words,

This verse is clearly a reference to Genesis 6-8, which we know today is an epic tale or saga rather than an account of an historic event. The genre of literature is the same as we find throughout Genesis 1-11; therefore, we can be quite sure that the whole of these eleven chapters is a redacted collection of epic tales or sagas that may be either legends or myths.

[glad4mercy]

I have NEVER said nor implied that I hold Genesis 1-11 to be a myth. Furthermore, I do not know of any Old Testament scholars who believe that Genesis 1-11 is a myth. Therefore, the issue that you are mainly disagreeing with is an issue that you yourself made up out of thin air!

My actual words,

Ok, I stand corrected. What you said was that Genesis 1-11 may be myths.

Genesis 1-11 is a redacted collection of epic tales or sagas that may be either legends or myths

So you do not hold that Genesis 1-11 is a myth, I was wrong to say that. You do hold that it may be a myth, which is pure speculation.

Now what did you mean when you said this?

May I ask you, was it clear from reading the quotes (from another tread) in my post in which I referenced the Garden of Eden and Eve’s sin in that garden that I do not believe that either the garden or Eve herself ever existed? The quotes could reasonably be interpreted either way, but the point being made is not affected by that ambiguity.

Please explain, if this is the case and Eve did not exist, did a literal first man, ( Adam), exist? If not, how do you account for the Fall of man? How did we become sinful? If you think Genesis 3 is an allegory, please explain it to me.

.