Creation 6 day literal? Or Not

[Kbertsche]

IMHO that is an error. All Christians are "creationists" of one type or another. We all believe that God created the world and everything in it as well as the universe that surrounds it. There is merely disagreement over what processes were involved.

Well said; I completely agree. "Creation vs. Evolution" is a false dichotomy.

[rogue06]

Well said; I completely agree. "Creation vs. Evolution" is a false dichotomy.

Absolutely. As John Stott, the leading British evangelical and principal framer of the landmark Lausanne Covenant (one of the most influential documents in modern Evangelical Christianity) explained:

[shunyadragon]

Do you know how the earth is dated at 4.5 billion years? Do you know how life on earth is dated in billions of years?

One of the methods is dating zircon crystals to the time the crystals formed, which the oldest are from Australia - ~4.4 billion years ago

Many minerals are dated to the time they were deposited, for example clays in marine shales, and marine life deposited in limestones. I am not sure of where your going with this questioning dating of rocks, because there are a number of different methods for dating sequences of rocks like the cyclothem deposits in Appalachia. Also coal deposits can be accurately time dated by the minerals deposited in the organic sediments. Potassium Argon dating is one form of dating the time these minerals were formed and deposited, particularly clay minerals.

[Yttrium]

IMHO that is an error. All Christians are "creationists" of one type or another. We all believe that God created the world and everything in it as well as the universe that surrounds it. There is merely disagreement over what processes were involved.

Thanks for the clarification.

[JimL]

Absolutely. As John Stott, the leading British evangelical and principal framer of the landmark Lausanne Covenant (one of the most influential documents in modern Evangelical Christianity) explained:

In other words some Christians, the biblical literalists, the creationists, believe the Bible to be the "word of God" written by men, and others, the fabricationists, the evolutionists, believe the Bible to be the "word of men" who just happen to believe in God?

[Yttrium]

In other words some Christians, the biblical literalists, the creationists, believe the Bible to be the "word of God" written by men, and others, the fabricationists, the evolutionists, believe the Bible to be the "word of men" who just happen to believe in God?

Apparently, all Christians are creationists, because they believe God created the universe. Those that accept evolution would still believe that the Bible is the word of God, but they would also believe that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

[rogue06]

In other words some Christians, the biblical literalists, the creationists, believe the Bible to be the "word of God" written by men, and others, the fabricationists, the evolutionists, believe the Bible to be the "word of men" who just happen to believe in God?

In a word, no.

[JonathanL]

In other words some Christians, the biblical literalists, the creationists, believe the Bible to be the "word of God" written by men, and others, the fabricationists, the evolutionists, believe the Bible to be the "word of men" who just happen to believe in God?

Reading comprehension isn't really your strong suit, is it?

[jordanriver]

Apparently, all Christians are creationists, because they believe God created the universe. Those that accept evolution would still believe that the Bible is the word of God, but they would also believe that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

some people think that....
...even if you don't take EVERYTHING literally,
....in other words, if you can tell some things are metaphor (Jesus isn't a literal chicken with feathers and wings, and He is not a literal door with a doorknob)

...anyway, some people think that if there is some point that they don't take literally, and you do, then, you must take EVERYTHING literal.

[JimL]

Apparently, all Christians are creationists, because they believe God created the universe. Those that accept evolution would still believe that the Bible is the word of God, but they would also believe that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

If the Bible were the word of God, then there would be no reason for its being fabulated. Genesis was fabulated because it was written by men who happened to believe in God, but had no idea about the origins of the world or its evolution. Christian evolutionists now know better, but can't admit to themselves that the Bible is the "word of men" who fabalized a story to fit there belief in God and creation.

[Adrift]

In other words some Christians, the biblical literalists, the creationists, believe the Bible to be the "word of God" written by men, and others, the fabricationists, the evolutionists, believe the Bible to be the "word of men" who just happen to believe in God?

No. There are plenty of Old Earth creationist models that hold that a literal reading of scripture and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. And its also not the case that those who hold to a more metaphorical reading believe the Bible to be just the "word of men".

[Yttrium]

If the Bible were the word of God, then there would be no reason for its being fabulated. Genesis was fabulated because it was written by men who happened to believe in God, but had no idea about the origins of the world or its evolution. Christian evolutionists now know better, but can't admit to themselves that the Bible is the "word of men" who fabalized a story to fit there belief in God and creation.

As long as they're on my side of the science debate, I don't care whether they take their non-literal stuff as fanciful fables or true in a meaningful metaphor sense.

[JimL]

No. There are plenty of Old Earth creationist models that hold that a literal reading of scripture and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. And its also not the case that those who hold to a more metaphorical reading believe the Bible to be just the "word of men".

What do you mean by "just the words of men"?

[rogue06]

If the Bible were the word of God, then there would be no reason for its being fabulated. Genesis was fabulated because it was written by men who happened to believe in God, but had no idea about the origins of the world or its evolution. Christian evolutionists now know better, but can't admit to themselves that the Bible is the "word of men" who fabalized a story to fit there belief in God and creation.

Or the intent of Genesis wasn't to provide us with a science lesson but rather was concerned with larger truths. The message of Genesis 1 is obviously theological in nature not scientific. Confusion enters when we try to read into the text modern concerns that were never intended to be addressed by the authors. Further trying to extract scientific truths from the text pulls attention away from the theology.

Since specialized scientific writing did not emerge as a literary genre until the founding of the first scientific journals in the seventeenth century, it is anachronistic to press scientific meanings on to Genesis. Instead God delivered the message by utilizing the incidental language of ancient near eastern cosmology a technique which isn't exactly unique to Genesis.

To once again quote Old Testament scholar John H. Walton:

Source: Lost World of Genesis One

"If cosmic geology is culturally descriptive rather than revealed truth, it takes its place among many other biblical examples of culturally relative notions. For example, in the ancient world people believed the seat of intelligence, emotion and personhood was in the internal organs, particularly the heart, but also the liver, kidneys and intestines. Many Bible translations use the English word "mind" when the Hebrew text refers to the entrails, showing the ways in which language and culture interrelated. In modern language we still refer to the heart metaphorically as the seat of emotion. In the ancient world this was not metaphor, but physiology. Yet we must notice that when God wanted to talk to the Israelites about their intellect, emotions and will, he did not revise their ideas of physiology and feel compelled to reveal the function of the brain. Instead, he adopted the language of the culture to communicate in terms they understood. The idea that people think with their hearts describes physiology in ancient terms for the communication of other matters; it is not revelation concerning physiology... Throughout the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture."

© Copyright Original Source

[Adrift]

What do you mean by "just the words of men"?

Meaning that even a Christian metaphoralist may agree with the literalist that the words put to page were inspired by God.