Genesis, myths and miracles

[cpayne]

I think I know why Orogeny only posted once and then disappeared. I can’t work up the time or energy to re-post all the TONS of stuff already written on this. For example, if you’re in the mood for an extremely long discussion, you might want to look up the thread “Theistic Evolution.”

 

[Philthy]

It is not all or nothing… it is, however, a position that is taken when there is a conflict between science (or human understanding) and what God has said with his Word. When the two do not see eye-to-eye, then I side with God’s Word.

Sounds good, but it’s a standard that becomes impossible to apply in the case of Genesis. For example: the “day” thing.
How do we “side with God’s Word” on what it means for a “day” to pass when the earth is not rotating around the sun because the sun has not yet been created? That is an impossible situation. Do we “side” with God’s word by ASSUMING God is talking about 24 hours? How is that “siding” with God? All that is doing IMHO is wanting to make it comprehendible so that one can believe they are “siding with God” when, in fact, God has not clearly stated his intent. In fact, it may very well be easier to argue that, given all the information, God has PURPOSELY created ambiguity in the creation account. How could you accuse someone of not “siding” with God if their understanding is that God purposely introduced irreconcilable differences between how we commonly understand things and how they are presented in Genesis and therefore does not hold to the current interpretation of a “day”? It seems arbitrary to me…

 

[TylerAlex]

Sounds good, but it’s a standard that becomes impossible to apply in the case of Genesis. For example: the “day” thing.
How do we “side with God’s Word” on what it means for a “day” to pass when the earth is not rotating around the sun because the sun has not yet been created? That is an impossible situation. Do we “side” with God’s word by ASSUMING God is talking about 24 hours? How is that “siding” with God? All that is doing IMHO is wanting to make it comprehendible so that one can believe they are “siding with God” when, in fact, God has not clearly stated his intent. In fact, it may very well be easier to argue that, given all the information, God has PURPOSELY created ambiguity in the creation account. How could you accuse someone of not “siding” with God if their understanding is that God purposely introduced irreconcilable differences between how we commonly understand things and how they are presented in Genesis and therefore does not hold to the current interpretation of a “day”? It seems arbitrary to me…

When you get to Heaven, you can ask God to answer that for you. I am not so much interested in the HOW- because God has power beyond my comprehension.

But, hear me out…

It is thought (not that I agree) that it takes roughly 300 millions of years to form real diamonds inside the earth’s mantle from mineral deposits contained there.

Now, “man-made diamonds can be produced in extreme high-pressure presses from any carbon-rich material, with graphite being the most commonly used. The time it takes is dependent on how large you want the diamonds to be (bigger ones take longer). Crystals 150 microns across can be grown in a few minutes at the extreme conditions in the presses.”

At the beginning of the 20th century, you would have been laughed at if you stated it was possible to make a diamond in just a few hours, or days. The scientific evidence would not permit you to theorize that. Now… the impossible, becomes possible.

What may seem impossible to us now, on earth… will became clearly evident to us in Heaven.

 

[Orogeny]

I think I know why Orogeny only posted once and then disappeared. I can’t work up the time or energy to re-post all the TONS of stuff already written on this. For example, if you’re in the mood for an extremely long discussion, you might want to look up the thread “Theistic Evolution.”

Wow, I know I have been trying to lose weight, but I didn’t think I would actually disappear!

Peace

Tim

 

[CarlosG]

First, HOW God created the earth and heavens is not known for certain,

Agreed, and in the end it doesnt really matter, only that he created them ex nihilo. But if you require certainty as an epistemic foundation you will end up next to Descartes’ demon. I do not require certainty to to form an opinion.

and whether you can scientifically prove it or not does not matter.

Science Never “proves” anything.

What evidence do we have that he truly created a Heaven? What evidence do we have that manna appeared from nowhere on the ground, or water flowed from a rock? Prove Jesus fed 5000 people from a few loaves and fishes! What evidence do we have that a person can rise form the dead, let alone walk and live amongst people afterward?

Well for one I find the writers to be credible witnesses, but I dont accept your interpretation because it does not comport with Scripture.

Fideistic… hardly. Your desire for evidence supercedes God’s plan to have you just accept his Word on Faith.

How do you reconcile that? There are examples where God requires us to trust in him implicitly… despite the fact that there is a dearth of evidence.

God could spend an eternity trying to convince you with evidence and many of you would still not believe. Your threshhold for proof and understanding is completely different from the next person.

Its ironic that you mention this given your stance about God’s natural revelation. God has given us more than a dozen different ways to tell the age of the earth and universe that all mesh very nicely with each other yet you reject them all because it doesnt fit WITH YOUR interpretation. Truth does not contradict truth!! Bad science gets worse, not better. Same with exegesis.

Anytime you look at the world and filter it through man’s conscience and understanding, you risk tainting and distorting it.

Agreed, but I dont see what this has to do with anything. If you are saying that i’m wrong, just say it flat out. If you are saying that we can both be wrong, we yeah, but whos got the evidence to back up his point?

It is not all or nothing… it is, however, a position that is taken when there is a conflict between science (or human understanding) and what God has said with his Word. When the two do not see eye-to-eye, then I side with God’s Word.

There is no conflict. You are the one with the conflict.

God and science? You say them as they are wholly seperate entities. As if logical deduction doesnt flow from Gods very nature. That little addition (“or human understanding”) makes it look like you are trying to pin most human error on scientists, but certainly that cannot be the case. You are my case in point.

 

[buffalo]

How many forms has the devil taken to trick us? To what forms is he limited?

 

[JeffFerguson]

If I believe in the Bible, I’m sure many of you are wondering why I also believe in science.

Many people talk as if theology and science are mutually exclusive. I am not convinced. Perhaps there is room for both. Can science be viewed as one of the mathematical languages of God?

 

[rossum]

That’s my first pass at analysing this question. Please chime in with your own thoughts.

I tend to look at the question “What would we expect to see here and now if this really did happen?”

Something like Balaam’ talking donkey (must avoid a-s-s ) would not be expected to leave any traces here and now. Hence it is neither possible to confirm nor deny the story scientifically.

Something like Noah’s flood would be expected to leave a lot of traces here and now. The fact that we do not find those traces is strong evidence that it is incorrect to interpret that part of Genesis literally.

Overall this generally means that small miracles are scientifically neutral, but the large things are disproved by what we see here and now. Assuming that Christians do not want to worship a deceptive God, that leaves a non-literal interpretation of those parts of the Bible.

rossum

 

[AlmostCatholic]

If I may interject some thoughts…

I think it is a mistake to try to pit science and the Bible against each other, as if one says something that contradicts the other. The paradigm needs to be altered a little. SOmeone earlier stated that it is mans’ understanding against man’s understanding that is at issue. This is exactly it. Science is taking data from nature and creating hypothoses about it and then testing them. It is a method for understanding. It is exactly like theology. We take data (God’s word, logic, testimony, etc.) and create hypothoses from the data. The data itself cannot be right or wrong, it is only the material we work with.
I would argue that since both nature and the Bible are God’s testimony, then any contradictions are due to our misunderstandings. It is like an apparent contradiction between John and Matthew. Both are God’s word and therefore do not disagree, but our understanding isn’t always correct about what is being said.
I agree with the earlier posts regarding Hugh Ross and his work at reasons.org. It is the most sensible approach that I have found yet in this issue. He explains very cogently why the genesis account and the big bang theory are really saying the same thing. The problem is largley in how we have interpreted the Genesis account. [A good example of this is the use of the term day. Ancient Hebrew has a horribly small vocabulary, so when we translate the word yom as day, it really can be used to mean daytime, 24 hours, a finite period of time, or an epoch. But it is not an infinite period of time. When we translate it into English we put our idea of day into it that is probably not the intention of the author. (There is other evidence for the word yom as a long day, but it is better coming from Reasons.org)]

As far as Noahs flood, there is also the issue of an incorrect understanding of the text. The Bible describes a universal flood, not a global flood. It is foolish to think that the whole world was flooded (Sorry Dr. Morris). But it is understandable to believe in a Universal (regarding mankind) flood. All of humanity and all that humanity had influenced was wiped out. This would have been in the meopotamian area where there is abundant evidence of flood geology.

I don’t think we need to side with Science or religion. Both are means to understanding God. We can err in our interpretations of the data, but ultimately they come closer and closer to each other as our understanding and knowledge increase.

Peace in Christ
-Justin

 

[jmcrae]

I tend to look at the question “What would we expect to see here and now if this really did happen?”

Something like Balaam’ talking donkey (must avoid a-s-s ) would not be expected to leave any traces here and now. Hence it is neither possible to confirm nor deny the story scientifically.

Something like Noah’s flood would be expected to leave a lot of traces here and now. The fact that we do not find those traces is strong evidence that it is incorrect to interpret that part of Genesis literally.

Of course we find the traces of Noah’s flood - every inland desert on the planet is abundantly littered with the fossils of salt-water ocean dwelling creatures. How did these legless, lungless, salt-dependant creatures get over the mountains and travel 3,000 miles over land and fresh water - unless there was, at some point in history, a world-wide flood?

In addition to that, every culture old enough to go back that far has a “flood myth,” in addition to a “creation myth” that gives the same order of Creation as the first chapter of Genesis - first the water, then the sky, then the land, then the sea dwelling creatures, then the birds, and then the land creatures, and last of all, the people. The details change, of course, but the main ideas do not.

 

[AlmostCatholic]

Of course we find the traces of Noah’s flood - every inland desert on the planet is abundantly littered with the fossils of salt-water ocean dwelling creatures. How did these legless, lungless, salt-dependant creatures get over the mountains and travel 3,000 miles over land and fresh water - unless there was, at some point in history, a world-wide flood?

In addition to that, every culture old enough to go back that far has a “flood myth,” in addition to a “creation myth” that gives the same order of Creation as the first chapter of Genesis - first the water, then the sky, then the land, then the sea dwelling creatures, then the birds, and then the land creatures, and last of all, the people. The details change, of course, but the main ideas do not.

A worldwide flood is a theory that fits some of the facts. It would explain why we find ocean animals in deserts and on mountain tops.

A seperate theory that fits the facts is plate techtonics. It explains how some areas that were once oceans can be lifted up above sealine and even be pushed into mountains or pulled apart into rifts. It also exlpains a great many other things; like why the continents look like they fit together, what causes earthquakes; how mountains are created and so on.

Flood geology doesn’t explain why there are layers of rock ontop of others in stratum. It doesn’t explain the laborious slowness of the growth of the great barrier reef. It doesn’t explain the Grand Canyon. It doesn’t explain why some animals appear lower in stratum and then disapear, and why some animals don’t apppear until higher stratum. Based on the amount of creatures we find fossilized, the world at Noahs time would have to be literally piled with creatures atop each other. The flood fails being an explanatory theory for these problems (and many, many more.)

Granted that catastrophism does explain some geological events that slow processes don’t, it doesn’t explain everything. Plate techtonics is well described by scientific study and research that fits more of the facts and is therefore a better (though still incomplete) theory.

The fact that the flood is described by cultures world wide is well attested to and I agree that it gives good evidence for a universal flood. I don’t agree though, that unviersal is synonomous with worldwide.

Peace in Christ
-Justin

 

[patg]

What authority do you have to say that we cannot take God’s Word literally? Your understanding is completely different from mine.

That’s fine, the church is happy with either understanding. However, my understanding is what the church teaches in most bible adult education classes.

The author is God. Are you saying God does not comprehend what He has created and how to tell us?

Tha author is *NOT *God. The bible is written in human terms by human authors to help humans understand God. God is the inspiration

Your argument is basically that your faith is in only in what you can see/hear/understand. The Bible is full of examples, even in the Gospels, where faith without all the appearance of miracles and proof was glorified and sanctified.

I don’t know what makes you think that - belief in all the miracles is purely a matter of faith since they are all beyond our understanding.

Once again, the author was God. Are you saying God does not understand the science he created?

Once again, the authors are humans writing to humans about God’s inspired message. They are free to teach that message in the way they see fit. As Paul VI said in Dei Verbum:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

Notice how it says “truth is set forth and expressed differently…”.

The author is God. And… it is not obvious, nor evident, that anything described there is meant to be symbolic.

If you believe this, you really need an introduction to Catholic scriptural analysis. Please read the textbook used for many classes: “And God Said What” by Margaret Ralph and “Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know” by Ronald Witherup.

Alright… since you seem to be an expert in symbols and meanings, tell me exactly where in the Bible I am supposed to believe that supernatural things that took place were not symbolic, but meant to be taken literal?

I’m not an expert, I am just relaying what the church teaches. If you don’t understand the literary form, as numerous Church documents insist you must, then misunderstandings

This is more silliness. Cain is now a story… I suppose Moses was too? According to your logic, because agrarians back in the day would not have the proper drilling equipment and sophisticated farming methods, Scripture (Exodus) mentioning the account of God proving Moses and Israel manna and water from a rock was a story too.

Maybe it was. But that doesn’t matter as long as you understand the meaning.

The Bible is just one, big story after story then. This is the type of reasoning I suggested that was happening and you proved my point.

You don’t have to accept what I say - read Dei Verbum, read the documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and especially read the two books I mentioned above.

 

[TylerAlex]

Tha author is *NOT *God. The bible is written in human terms by human authors to help humans understand God. God is the inspiration

From the Catechism:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

Since we cannot agree on who the author of the Bible is, any further discussion with you on the relevency of literal/non-literal interpretation of Scripture is pointless.

And… you had the audacity to tell me that I need an introduction to Catholic Scripture analysis.

laughs

I am taking a break form the subject matter for the weekend… someone else can carry the torch for a bit.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

From the Catechism:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture.

Hey Tyler dont worry some agree with you, your only trusting God to fill in the blanks later on and thats what were supposed to do. If we had all the answers well, wed be . . .

And your quote thats a great thing I didnt think Catholics thought that, (a myth thats spread) Now I see its not true, Im totally encouraged by that.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

ps just some other thoughts hope its ok,

Its just opening but there is a new creation museum near me

bvcsm.com/

The Big Valley Creation Science Museum the first permament one in Canada

Its not open yet but I will have to go and check it out. The university is already complaining saying they better be fair, I guess fair like they are and not mention creation except as idiots.

There was a book I bought at the Grand Canyon called Gramd Canyon A Different View by Tom Vail. The scientific bunch complained it shouldnt be allowed in park bookstores as it wasnt right. Any Christian should buy this book when going there to support the author and its a wonderful book.

Also when I was on vacation we went to Kitt Peak in Tuscon Az highly recommended for the nightly observation, total highlight of trip. Anyway they mentioned other observatories in the area and I guess your vatican has one. The guy was impressed they had a priest that actually was a astronmer running it. But then he said " Dont know what they are doing there, hope its productive" while he was a great guy and a fantastic guide, he still has the bias towards the Christian view.

There was a clever name for it too, cant remember, dont know if they do public viewings Id like to just to see it from a Christian view. Because its so rare to find one, its only in one book in a store, a few muesums around the world, and one telescope in many.

 

[rossum]

Of course we find the traces of Noah’s flood

No, we find traces of local floods. There is no time when all of the earth is covered with water - there is always some dry land somewhere.

It is also clear that many of the underwater deposits are not due to the flood: some are salt water, some are fresh water (you can tell by the animals found). Some are still water, some are flowing water. Even Leonardo da Vinci, writing about 1510, was able to see that such deposits were not from a flood:"If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.

“And we find oysters together in very large families, among which some may be seen with their shells still joined together, indicating that they were left there by the sea and that they were still living when the strait of Gibraltar was cut through. In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of shells and corals with holes may be seen still sticking to the rocks…”

There are also many rocks that are definitely not the product of a flood - sand dunes, crystallised salt, layers of soil and so forth.

In addition to that, every culture old enough to go back that far has a “flood myth,”

Humans need water to live so many human settlements are in river valleys. River valleys are prone to flooding. There are a lot of different flood stories, very few of which bear any resemblance to Noah. See Flood Stories from Around the World

in addition to a “creation myth” that gives the same order of Creation as the first chapter of Genesis - first the water, then the sky, then the land, then the sea dwelling creatures, then the birds, and then the land creatures, and last of all, the people. The details change, of course, but the main ideas do not.

Humans like to find explanations for things, so a creation story is an obvious answer to why we are here. As to the order of the first chapter of Genesis, it is immediately contradicted by the second chapter of Genesis: did the beasts come before or after Adam?

If you have a look at different creation stories you will find a lot of different orders of creation, see Creation Myths.

Many cultures explain thunder by having a thunder god - Zeus with his thunderbolts, Thor with his hammer and so forth. Since then science has replaced the original explanation with something better.

rossum

 

[patg]

Since we cannot agree on who the author of the Bible is, any further discussion with you on the relevency of literal/non-literal interpretation of Scripture is pointless.

That’s mostly just semantics - the scriptures were physically written by humans for humans using human literary forms. If we want to call God the “author” or the inspiration or whatever, that’s fine. But what you are really doing is denying God and the human authors the right to teach the truth they are trying to convey in the form they want to use. If God wants to teach the truth using non-historical myth or legend or poetry or whatever then I don’t deny God that right or ability. I was saying that the Church clearly states that there are a multitude of literary forms in the scriptures and that we are required to consider the literary form in any interpretive exercise.

And… you had the audacity to tell me that I need an introduction to Catholic Scripture analysis.

I merely pointed out that the church teaches otherwise and suggested some sources to check out that you should feel are more reliable than me.

 

[Philthy]

When you get to Heaven, you can ask God to answer that for you. I am not so much interested in the HOW- because God has power beyond my comprehension.

But, hear me out…

It is thought (not that I agree) that it takes roughly 300 millions of years to form real diamonds inside the earth’s mantle from mineral deposits contained there.

Now, “man-made diamonds can be produced in extreme high-pressure presses from any carbon-rich material, with graphite being the most commonly used. The time it takes is dependent on how large you want the diamonds to be (bigger ones take longer). Crystals 150 microns across can be grown in a few minutes at the extreme conditions in the presses.”

At the beginning of the 20th century, you would have been laughed at if you stated it was possible to make a diamond in just a few hours, or days. The scientific evidence would not permit you to theorize that. Now… the impossible, becomes possible.

What may seem impossible to us now, on earth… will became clearly evident to us in Heaven.

I heard you out as per your request. Please hear me out:

When you use the word “day” what, exactly, do you mean by it?
Please define it.

I am not saying that it couldnt have happened in what YOU interpret as a literal understanding of the creation account. All I am saying is that there are good reasons to believe that it was not meant to be taken in the literal manner that you have proposed. Why are you so afraid of such a scenario anyhow?

 

[Philthy]

… I am not so much interested in the HOW- because God has power beyond my comprehension…

What may seem impossible to us now, on earth… will became clearly evident to us in Heaven.

It is not a question of not being interested in the “HOW” - we all believe in God’s omnipotence. That honestly has nothing to do with it. It is a question of understanding what the word “day” means prior to the sun having been created. You have chosen to impose upon the term “day” a meaning that GOD has clearly revealed in Scripture to NOT be possible. A meaning that is inextricably linked to the actual rotation of the earth around the sun. Why do you ignore what has been written into Genesis - that the sun had not yet been created? It seems like you simply want to understand it in simple terms and justify it as accepting God’s Word on faith. But what you are really doing is imposing your current understanding of what a day is into a situation where that understanding CANNOT be properly used. The problem is that God’s Word reveals that such an understanding cannot be forced upon it whether under the pretense of faith or anything else.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

It is not a question of not being interested in the “HOW” - we all believe in God’s omnipotence. That honestly has nothing to do with it. It is a question of understanding what the word “day” means prior to the sun having been created.

This is Tylers conversation but in support of him til he returns. Consider that God is the sustainer of life, when the sun dies as it should as other suns have, then what? The sun and all of it could die and if God sustains life then none of it is necessary. Sortof like those science fiction movies where the superior being is in a form we can understand, because we are not there yet.

Im not sure people allow God to be God enough sometimes. Because you are opposing yourself when you say Gods omnipotence has nothing to do with it. Then argue with a human meaning of day. Consider what God said in detail was what was important to us. That which is “mysterious” or not as straight forward as we want is either too hard for us to comprehend or simply not important we have the whole picture.

Exactly how long a day is or how many animals on the ark are simply not as important as Love your neighbour as yourself, as I have Loved you. At some point there is a trust that has to be formed. Just as we trusted our parents when we didnt know all the details, the same is with God. (personally I think He made us parents so we could get a glimpse of it)