The inverse of Phil's statement is all too true:

"They've turned our classrooms in a atheistically-controlled anti-religion breeding ground..."

Sad how they can never see their own point of view as a point of view.

MJ
Meta-jester | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 11:58 pm | #

Also, if I may be so bold as to disagree, I think the "chronologically correct" claim and the thinking behind it are rather naive.

If you're going to try to measure Genesis by whatever modern science happens to say today (and it is never settled), Genesis is always going to get the short end of the stick.

For any Christian, the core of Bible is the Incarnation, so the essential point to take from Genesis is that it points to Jesus Christ (e.g., God created the universe as good; man is responsible for creation's fall). Everything else is superfluous.

My advice is to concentrate your defense on the essentials of the narrative: first things first.

MJ
Meta-jester | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 12:09 am | #

MJ,

The point was not to present and defend the day-age view (although I could do that, since I happen to think it is correct), but to address Phil's cavalier claim regarding the bible and cosmology.

We'll have to disagree about your view that everything else in Genesis (other than foreshadowing Christ) is superfluous.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 6:12 am | #

Hmmm, you both have different interpretations of the Bible. Which one should I take as correct? Which one of you is more authoritative?

Also, MJ, you still owe me some assumptions.
GCT | 06.16.05 - 3:44 pm | #

So, David: Do you reject Genesis 2 as "inaccurate" or "false?" It offers a different order of creation from the one you explain, with the creation of humans coming before other animals.
Ed Darrell | 06.20.05 - 3:00 pm | #

Ed wrote,

“It (Gen. 2) offers a different order of creation from the one you explain, with the creation of humans coming before other animals.”

No, it doesn’t. It is amazing that you would make such a statement. It is like going to Panda’s Thumb and asking PZ “what good is half an eye?” as if PZ never considered that question and would reply, “Gee, I hadn’t though of that before.”

Do you expect those who have studied the bible and affirm its inerrancy to cave and reply, “Gosh, Ed points out that Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1. I didn’t see that one coming.”
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.20.05 - 3:57 pm | #

Read 'The Changing Paradigms of Science' by Dr Michael Fuller of the Institut du Cenospecies in Paris, France. Posted here: http://sciencethefuture.blogspot.com/
where lies the truth? | 06.21.05 - 4:47 am | #

Yeah, no doubt you saw that one coming, and so you were ready to duck.

So, do you dismiss Genesis 2 as inaccurate, or what? It presents a different order of creation than that presented in Genesis 1. There is no way to reconcile the two texts on this issue, and no, Genesis 2 is not "detail" of what happens in Genesis 1 -- the order of creation is different.

Since you saw it coming, perhaps you developed an answer? Or is ducking the question enough of a response for most of your readers?
Ed Darrell | 06.21.05 - 2:05 pm | #

Ed,

Most of my readers know the answer. It wasn't like this question lay dormant until Ed Darrel resurrected it. It has been adequately answered for millennia. Next you’ll stump us with the differing genealogies of Jesus.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 2:50 pm | #

I'd like to hear the answer. At least point us to a link that you agree with David.
GCT | 06.22.05 - 7:04 am | #

There are several creation stories related in the Bible, in several different forms. Were any of them to be considered literal, it would conflict with most of the others.

The key creation messages of the two very different stories in Genesis are these: God is the creator, the creative force behind everything in the universe (seen and unseen); and God created out of love.

To suggest that the message of any of these stories is that evolution is wrong misses the points of the stories. Some would regard that as a form of blasphemy. Evolution is not addressed directly in any story.

However, another message is that the Gospel and the Word of God transcend the more parochial claims that came before. By incorporating several different creation stories, the message is made that regardless the how of creation, God was behind it, and God has the why. Considered in that light, evolution is nothing more than another creation story. That it is scientifically accurate and leads to better health and more food for more people does not in any way detract from the Word of God; to the astute, in fact, those would be noted as key ministries of Jesus. Evolution is, therefore, supportive of Christianity and not in any way opposed to it.

David will have a different story, I'm sure.
Ed Darrell | 06.22.05 - 3:37 pm | #

The answer to which question? The animals coming after man in Genesis 2? There are several well know explanations. The one I favor is the simplest. Genesis 2 (from v. 4 onward) is not a creation account, it is a fall-of-man account. Anything creation related is incidental. In particular v19 says nothing more than God created the animals, and he was now bringing them to Adam to be named. (I am also told that the tense of the Hebrew would have allowed the translation "had formed" rather than "formed", but in either case the translation does not demand that the animals were created at that instant and then brought before Adam.) There is simply nothing in v19 that demands a particular sequence of creation.

There is only one creation account. However, Ed is correct (in my opinion) that if it is taken literal it leads to problems. But once again, literal and inerrant are not the same thing.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.23.05 - 10:33 am | #

yom from early original texts very, very specifically means day as in 24 hour day. The Hebrew word ages was not used.

Scriptures indicate that their was a morning and an evening for each day.

If one cannot understand the omnipotent powers of God, meaning that God is capable of bringing about many of the things of the world within 6 24 hour periods, I trully wonder if they even know God.

Christ healed "hopelessly" damaged flesh in an instant when he healed people. He raised "hopelessly" dead bodies instantly when he raised the dead.

Christ commanded the earth's atmosphere to be quiet while in a boat on the sea and instantly the storm ceased.

PLEASE do not try to limit the limitless power of God. God is plenty capable of aging carbons in an instant to achieve the creation he desires. Science and obviously some of His pastors can't seem to get their minds around that...
RG | 06.27.05 - 3:53 am | #

The early chapters of Genisis seem to be apocaliptic literature. This is a highly symbolic way of expressing an underlieing truth. Ditto Joel, parts of Daniel and revalation. Think of a cartoon charactatuer. The authority on apocaliptic is (google) Milton Terry. Unfortunitly he bought into higher criticisim- but that was 100 yrs ago and we know better.

Plz forgive sp. and typing. I am just a poor fundy.

Re Pandas Thumb, why to they care? If the universe is a closed system of material causes, us poor fundies can't help ourselves. They should quit wasting their time and go increase pleasurable imputs. In the naturalist world all this talk is absurd.
paul ernst | 07.05.05 - 12:26 am | #

Paul Ernst, I care because I don't want to see bad psuedoscience (religion) passed off as good science in schools in an effort to dodge the first amendment while prosyletizing to children. I also want to protect the integrity of science.

I will go out on a limb and say that Panda's Thumb cares for the same reason.

You can help yourself. You can educate yourself about the world that we live in.
GCT | 07.05.05 - 6:54 am | #