tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213977381458736343.post416853962759408842..comments2024-01-06T10:36:03.652-05:00Comments on The Word Guild: Creation? or Evolution? – ReynoldsGlynishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15621548333351709607noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213977381458736343.post-71744832211775692032011-11-27T18:21:10.418-05:002011-11-27T18:21:10.418-05:00(Response part 5)
Ironically, the theological les...(Response part 5)<br /><br />Ironically, the theological lessons about the character of God, the purpose of creation, and so forth, which you derive from your reading of Genesis, are in fact true. I affirm those. However, they're only true because they're what Scripture actually teaches--just like the same Scripture actually teaches that God formed the Earth "out of water and by water"--literally.<br /><br />And no, the Bible does <i>not</i> teach that "the earth is flat," or that the Sun revolves around our planet, and other antiquated notions. You appear unwilling or unable to differentiate between places where the Bible uses face-value language, and places where it uses figurative language. Genesis 1 is <i>not</i> figurative. There is absolutely no scientific discovery that has ever overturned the literal understanding of the Creation account. And in fact the Creation account provides us with a thought-foundation for conducting proper science, rather than the naturalistic foundation that predominates today in the scientific establishment.<br /><br />What your article does, then, is acquiesce to, and lend a hand to, naturalistic thinking rather than biblical thinking. I urge you in Jesus' name to rethink the whole issue.Andy Doerksennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213977381458736343.post-42501507741421822992011-11-27T18:20:42.686-05:002011-11-27T18:20:42.686-05:00(Response part 4)
The same principle--historical ...(Response part 4)<br /><br />The same principle--historical statements having a bearing on science--applies to the Flood. Genesis 7:11 tells us that "all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened." Contextually the "great deep" in 7:11 is the same (or at least related to) that mentioned in Gen. 1:2. In other words something momentous occurred on the <i>sea floor</i> at the commencement of the Flood, the same sea floor out of which God had originally raised the continents. Now if Gen. 7:11 is actual history--and there's no reason to take it otherwise--then that should affect our understanding of at least some aspects of geology. It should be no surprise whatever that scientists have discovered the network of deep oceanic ridges wending their way around the globe--surely evidence of Gen. 7:11. The violence of this upheaval would also have given rise to at least some mountain-building, and this too helps us interpret certain topological features that have existed since that time--despite the fact that Genesis isn't a "geology book."<br /><br />But you go on to reveal why it is you don't take the Bible's Creation statements at face value: "How do you think this Biblical story came to be written? . . . I believe that this story developed over the years . . . . [T]his primitive people, gathered around their fire at night . . . . And the head of the family, or the family's story-teller, would repeat again the familiar words: <i>In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth</i> . . . . Over the years, this particular people, wooed by the Spirit of God, developed a sense of One who is beyond creation . . . ."<br /><br />These lines imply a couple of things: (a) We can't trust what the Bible tells us because it's a mixture of human ideas and some input from God at various stages. And (b) we should put more stock in what Alan Reynolds theorizes about how the Creation account originated, than in what that account itself tells us (along with commentary by such biblical writers as Peter).<br /><br />What you've inadvertently done here, then, is to undermine Genesis as a reliable foundation for building the Christian worldview.Andy Doerksennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213977381458736343.post-72532977117739703452011-11-27T18:19:50.845-05:002011-11-27T18:19:50.845-05:00(Response part 3)
Both Babylon and Egypt, for ins...(Response part 3)<br /><br />Both Babylon and Egypt, for instance, subscribed to the notion that the world and its creatures emerged from an original watery matrix. Why could that not be a <i>cultural memory</i>, garbled over time, of the actual Creation account handed down from Adam and Eve, who got it from God? The Genesis account, then, would provide the <i>accurate</i> rather than distorted version.<br /><br />Where Genesis sets the record straight, in re. to the Babylonian and Egyptian views, is to reveal that <i>Yahweh</i> was actually behind the watery matrix out of which everything else arose, rather than the pagan view that the water-realm was first. Instead of the pagan scenario, God first created a vast body of water, then formed the Earth (and possibly other planets) out of that water. Much later, the apostle Peter affirmed that this is what happened: "by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." (2Pet. 3:5)<br /><br />It's very obvious that Peter interpreted Gen. 1 literally--and there's no reason whatsoever that you and I shouldn't view it the same way. No, the Bible isn't a "science book"--but it doesn't logically follow that what it <i>does</i> tell us about Creation isn't literal or has no <i>bearing</i> on science.Andy Doerksennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213977381458736343.post-53317800522787824182011-11-27T18:19:18.389-05:002011-11-27T18:19:18.389-05:00(Response part 2)
However, if one begins with the...(Response part 2)<br /><br />However, if one begins with <i>theism</i>, then it is possible to conduct <i>theistic</i> science--i.e., based on the broad outline provided by Genesis regarding Creation Week (and the Flood).<br /><br />One of your errors is to assume that Genesis reflects a "primitive" view of origins. It's apparently never occurred to you that the "primitive" view of origins may, instead, <i>reflect what really happened</i>. You write, "There were other stories of creation in the literature of the ancient peoples of the near east -- Egyptian, Accadian, Mesopotamian. There are points of resemblance between those ancient stories and the Biblical story. But in significant ways, they differ."<br /><br />One way to interpret this situation between the various origin stories (including Genesis) is to assume they're <i>all</i> just versions of a human understanding--Genesis being different only in that God gave the Hebrews some <i>theological</i> insights, but nothing literal that impacts science. But we could just as easily and logically interpret this as reflecting <i>what actually happened</i>, with divine revelation eliminating the <i>pagan errors</i> when Genesis was written.Andy Doerksennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213977381458736343.post-42703421215827433532011-11-27T18:18:06.515-05:002011-11-27T18:18:06.515-05:00(Response part 1)
Brother Reynolds:
Thanks for y...(Response part 1)<br /><br />Brother Reynolds:<br /><br />Thanks for your article, but I feel compelled to gently (I hope!) take you to task for your handling of Genesis-vs-evolution. I'm convinced you actually don't grasp what's at the heart of the issue, despite your claim near the beginning about what "the point" is.<br /><br />That claim told me immediately where you were going, because it's a line oft-repeated by those who do not take the early chapters of Genesis as real history, but merely as symbolic. You stated, "The main point to remember is this: <i>The Bible is not a science book</i>."<br /><br />That assertion has been used countless times to jettison Scripture from the table of discussion about human and cosmic origins--so I knew that's precisely where you were headed.<br /><br />At the same time, however, you're technically correct: the Bible <i>isn't</i> a science book. The Bible is <i>pre</i>-science: it sets the worldview-stage for how science ought to be conducted. Science is never conducted in a philosophical vacuum; there are always nonempirical assumptions that precede it. If one is committed to the worldview of <i>naturalism</i>, then one will necessarily arrive at some version of the evolution of all things from scratch.Andy Doerksenhttp://andydoerksen.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213977381458736343.post-90943676123124264222011-11-02T08:37:29.132-04:002011-11-02T08:37:29.132-04:00Food for thought, for sure. A few questions for cl...Food for thought, for sure. A few questions for clarification...<br /><br />You mention that "this particular people... developed a sense of One who is beyond creation." This insinuates that God was at a distance, an idea formed in their minds. But what about Adam and Eve, their children and the generations that followed? They (A&E) were in God's presence in the garden of Eden. Their loss of fellowship would have been acute and likely passed on through the generations. Would "this particular people" not have an eye witness account outlining part of Creation (at least the seventh day, as well as the naming process)?<br /><br />The idea of reading the Bible to find God, as opposed to uncovering scientific fact, is important. Your thoughts are gently presented and well thought out. You've certainly provided fodder for discussion in our house :)<br /><br />(Sorry for the long comment)Di Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09111404493202037409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213977381458736343.post-43002571778153207532011-11-01T11:30:59.514-04:002011-11-01T11:30:59.514-04:00Alan, as always, you provide much to stimulate the...Alan, as always, you provide much to stimulate the mind and apply the mental mandibles to chew on. You have again accomplished that, helping to challenge long-held assumptions, serving to strengthen faith in God and His Word. Thanks!Peter Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15529992196266271463noreply@blogger.com