Genesis: The Creation Story and Evolution

[BelievingDoc1]

Hi, this is my first post. I'm not presenting this with the expectation that it will persuade anyone one way or another, particularly if you're one of those who don't believe in God or if you believe in God but have decided that evolution falls outside the bounds of your serious consideration. I do think it's important that believers who are uncomfortable discarding scientific consensus on evolution have an opportunity to see that there are people who take scripture very seriously and believe that there are extraordinary allusions to evolution in scripture.

This link is to an article I wrote about the creation story and evolution. I’m blown away by Genesis and the reiteration of themes of evolution throughout the OT and NT. Perhaps some of you will find this approach to hearing and seeing the poetry of what is written as interesting as I find it to be.

http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblo ... acc_1.html

[seventil]

For example, most Christians belong to some sort of church or denomination, many staying with the same church for years. Even so, many (certainly not all, and maybe not even a majority) would allow that there is no 'one right church' or 'one right denomination.' They allow that some divergence in church doctrine is OK, as long as it is not on an 'essential matter.' Yes, of course, what is an essential matter does vary quite a bit from person to person, church to church. Still, you can get Christians who disagree to say to each other "even though I do not accept your viewpoint, I can understand where you are coming from."

Denominations, from this Christians point of view, are one of the biggest wrongs in Christianity today.

I think the problem stems back to the old days, when the idea of "church" was perverted from it's original idea.

If you read the NT with an open mind, you'll find that the long idea of "church" is a manmade idea.

Anyway, this is another debate entirely (which I'll be happy to have if someone wants) -- I like the quote from the movie "Stigmata" on this subject: "The church is not made of stone or wood, but is inside you." Something like that.

I have noticed that when creationists debate with atheists or others who they see as not very close to their belief system, they become much more combative and instransigent. It becomes much more an 'us versus them' discussion. However, the very same creationist might be capable of having a more civil discussion, including even 'ambiguity', with a person who they perceive has an overall worldview closer to their own.

I agree. I can see so much hatred and anger in some atheists posts... it saddens me. With that being said, I do try to not get in a "us vs. them" battle - when it comes to Creation and science, I consider nearly all pursuits of science a good thing, no matter the theological disposition of the person doing the research.

For many creationists, especially YEC's, the jump from their worldview to 'standard evolutionary theory' is just too big. Perhaps, though, they can be 'incremented along' towards at least being open to other possibilities?

I don't know. Maybe I am being too optimistic, or I am just temporarily off my rocker on a Saturday night after too much outdoor work today.

The biggest step in this is liberal thinking in the Bible. That's why it's hard. Christians are usually taught that the Bible is "infalliable" and absolutely perfect in every way. I think this is just silly. You're giving MAN too much credit for keeping the "Word of God" perfectly intact for 6000 years. My faith is in God, not planetary bookkeepers.

It's a hard step though. I still get in some fierce debates with fellow Christians over it. Even after explaining the nature of Genesis, the Creation, and how old and implausible it is to be 100% literally correct, I still get a lot of attitude just for believing how I do.

In any case, I don't think it's a big step in faith. Personally, I find a YEC Earth entirely too simple and easy for the God I know.

[Galphanore]

See, you're the kind of Christian I don't usually debate with. What's the point? You're not hurting anyone with what you're saying and you're not out trying to prove that science is a fairy tail. Kudos to you.

[arn]

who has conducted more wars and been responsible for more deaths than the religious folks? i have absolutely no problem w/religion, except, don't stick it in my face, o.k.? you don't even know what happens after we die, for heavens sake.

[pepo1]

Sites like near-death.com give insights into life after death.

I think religion has been blamed for wars, e.g. the Muslim crusades when actually it was most likely some Muslim dictator, without any religious motivation, wanting to conquer and pillage for the sake of it, then convincing his minions that it was all in the name of religion. I think it still goes on today. The fault is most likely non-religious ambition.

who has conducted more wars and been responsible for more deaths than the religious folks? i have absolutely no problem w/religion, except, don't stick it in my face, o.k.? you don't even know what happens after we die, for heavens sake.

[QED]

Sites like near-death.com give insights into life after death.

Really? How in principle is it possible to gain an insight into something as remote as the supposed experience that follows death?

[arn]

pepo 1: statements like "sites like near-death give insights into life after death" are amazing to me-how can you leap there? surely you're more deep than that.
your brush off re. religions being responsible for more wars/bloodshed than not is insulting:
-wars in middle east and north africa, in the name of islam
-crusaders, in the name of christ (and supported be the pope)
-wars in 16-17th century europe between protestants & catholics
-czarist pogroms against jews
-no. ireland protestants vs catholics
-hindus vs muslims in india/pakistan
-buddhists vs hindus in sri lanka
-and we can all see whats happening today-in the name of GOD
think about weird examples like westboro babtist church in kansas, who hate most everyone, including "fags", catholics, and others. sorry, but i think us so-called christians should just back off and try to live a good life.

[arn]

pepo 1: statements like "sites like near-death give insights into life after death" are amazing to me-how can you leap there? surely you're more deep than that.
your brush off re. religions being responsible for more wars/bloodshed than not is insulting:
-wars in middle east and north africa, in the name of islam
-crusaders, in the name of christ (and supported by the pope)
-wars in 16-17th century europe between protestants & catholics
-czarist pogroms against jews
-no. ireland protestants vs catholics
-hindus vs muslims in india/pakistan
-buddhists vs hindus in sri lanka
-and we can all see whats happening today-in the name of GOD
think about weird examples like westboro babtist church in kansas, who hate most everyone, including "fags", catholics, and others. sorry, but i think us so-called christians should just back off and try to live a good life.

[kiwimac]

As a Christian living today there are a number of voices who claim to be speaking for all of us, they assail science and insist that we must literally accept every word in the Bible as true. In doing so they fail both themselves and others for much in the Bible is parable or metaphor. When we, as Christians, insist that parable must be accepted as literally true we put a stumbling block of, well, biblical proportions in the way of earnest seekers.

It is for such seekers that I write this article.

Should you happen to visit the Answers in Genesis site you will find, among other things the following comment,

"... We return to the question which forms the title of this article. Should Genesis be taken literally?

Answer: If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened..."

But are they right?

Modern science shows that the earth is billions of years in age, it comes to this conclusion in a number of ways and I recommend the following site for information even a non-scientist can understand, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html .

Is there then a meeting place between science and the Book of Genesis? Yes, there is and it comes from the understanding that Genesis is not a science text-book, that it was written in order to understand, not HOW the world came to be but WHY.

Genesis 1 & 2 are parables, they are parables about why there is an earth, why humans and animals and plants share it in common and why there is pain and suffering in the world. Parables are stories which may or may not be literally true but which imparts to us an important spiritual truth. In the New Testament we have parables such as the Good Samaritan, the evil vine-dressers; the parable of the prodigal son.

None of these New Testament stories are literal fact but they are true in a deeper, more meaningful way. So it is with the parables of Genesis 1 & 2. In them we are not being told that the world was created in six days, six thousand years ago. We are, however, being told that the world was created by God's intention, that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and that God is a close to us as a friend who walks and talks with us in the cool of the day.

Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Serpent, Noah and his Ark may or may not be literal truth but they are markers of ultimate truth, of truth which can be held only in the imagination, of truth which can only be shown in images and symbols.

Genesis can only be understood in that it is our story, each of us is Adam, each of us is Eve, we misunderstand the Genesis parables when we fail to realize that they are addressed to US individually. Genesis, then, is our unique, individual story told as parable it is not some pre-scientific attempt to explain how all things came to be but rather a profound series of meditations on why things should be in the first place.

Once we realize this, we can see there are no contradictions, can be no contradictions between the findings of science and God's word to us in Genesis. Let us happily give up our insistence on a literal Genesis and seek the deeper, religious truths that await us there.

[QED]

Modern science shows that the earth is billions of years in age, it comes to this conclusion in a number of ways and I recommend the following site for information even a non-scientist can understand, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html .

Is there then a meeting place between science and the Book of Genesis? Yes, there is and it comes from the understanding that Genesis is not a science text-book, that it was written in order to understand, not HOW the world came to be but WHY.

kiwimac, some might say this position is forced upon you by the fact that man is continually unravelling the mysteries of the world. You might be saying "That's OK, the divine inspiration for the worlds religious texts is only transferable to scribes in ways that can be understood in their own times". But what then is the relevance of something like "The Garden of Eden" in the light of billions of years of evolution? The planet as a whole might deserve this description but the concept of it being populated by immortal humans has no reflection in the carefully studied world of DNA for example.

All I can detect are posterior observations which make for notoriously easy correlations. There's plenty of material in parable form which seems to be directed at what I would term "crowd control" but I would suggest that this is man rubber stamping his own laws under an assumed divine imprimatur.

The only thing I have ever been impressed by is the bit about "in my father's house there are many mansions". This could be a remarkable insight into the world of atomic physics, but then again it could be a coincidence. The physical world is revealing itself more and more in these deep ways -- if inspiration were truly divine I'm afraid to say I'd really be expecting to see much more of these sorts of "coincidences" coming out of the texts.

[pepo1]

WHo is harmed by two people having sex?

No-one as long as they're married. If you're trying to justify fornication, St Paul has something to say about it. And as the corny song goes "If it feels so good, it just can't be wrong babe!". This is satan trying to keep us in the material, sensual world. The saints knew how to renounce and control sensualities with frequent prayer, fasting and sacrifices. Jesus spent 40 days fasting in the desert to rid Himself of such earthly hangups and get with the Spirit program.

Who is really harmed if the ten commandments are displayed in church but not the courthouse?

Obviously Christianity is harmed, in ways not immediately obvious to those who advocate false peace through the sensual feelings of fornication, or those who are lulled by satan's favourite con "ahh...what's the harm in that". It starts off small: "what's the harm in a little fornication", then it grows a little bigger: "what's the harm in a little adultery if the woman isn't happy and I'm helping her", but it has the potential to become "Ahh, what's the harm in a little pedophilia" or even "ahhh, what's the harm in a little bestiality".

At least in the U.S., we are free to worship (or not) as we see fit, to associate with who we will, to engage in dialogue, regardless of how one feels about the above issues.

.
Yes, it is clear that "liberty" is running a little wild in the USA. Religion has even become a fashion accessory, with people picking and choosing religions that suit their individual beliefs and lifestyles. Religion has become a way to "get" something instead of as it was meant to be - purely giving of worship to God.