Progressive Creationism...Does it fit Genesis 1 and 2? - Theology & Bible - CORNER DISCUSSIONS - THE CHURCH ON THE CORNER - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Apologetician	Progressive Creationism...Does it fit Genesis 1 and 2?		Lead	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 19, 2009 03:04 Arkansas Pastor	Tags : None Progressive Creationism Theorists in this school of thought divide between those who interpret Genesis literally and those who interpret Genesis non-literally. It is an effort to try to conform the Genesis account of creation with the astronomical and cosmological, geological and paleontological dates of millions of years.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Apologetician	This writer believes it is an attempt	#1	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 19, 2009 03:08 Arkansas Pastor	to borrow from Stephen Jay Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of Macroevolution and build a Theistic model corresponding to periods and dates postulated by that now defunct model.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
GeorgeRansom	Genesis 1:1-2	#2	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1612 February 19, 2009 03:56	In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. God created the heavens and the earth. The earth that was created was formless and empty. Darkness was over the surface of the deep. The time between it's creation and God's Spirit hovering over it to create light, etc., is unknown to us. Some translate was in verse 2 as became. Is that a possible translation of hayah? Definition: hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root ; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Apologetician	I don't think so...	#3	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 19, 2009 03:58 Arkansas Pastor	b/c of contextual statements and because of others Scriptures speaking of creation.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
GeorgeRansom	But . . .	#4	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1612 February 19, 2009 04:10	. . . after God created the earth it was formless and void.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Apologetician	Genesis 1:1 - 2ff	#5	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 20, 2009 05:45 Arkansas Pastor	Larry, Genesis 1:1-2 is a thematic statement, then from verse 3 onward we have the revelation of the creation of the heavens and earth. Last Edited By: Apologetician February 20, 2009 06:06. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Apologetician	History of Progressive Creationism	#6	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 20, 2009 05:59 Arkansas Pastor	Although its original leadership favoured Biblical literalism and it was intended to be anti-evolutionary, it rejected the creationist theories propounded by George McCready Price‎ (young Earth creationism) and Harry Rimmer (gap creationism), and it was soon moving rapidly in the direction of theistic evolution, with some members "stopping off" on the less Modernist view that they called "progressive creationism."
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
AUTigers001		#7	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 525 February 20, 2009 06:54	I think I'll just sit this one out... you know my views on it. It started WWIII on a different board because you insisted that I was an atheist -- since I didn't think exactly like you. "Mom smokes in the car. Jesus is okay with it, but we can't tell Dad." -- Sheldon Cooper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
GeorgeRansom	Fine, Apo, thematic or not . . .	#8	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1612 February 20, 2009 07:31	. . . there is a point when the earth is formless and void (KJV), then God dresses it up progressively. He took at least six days to do it.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Apologetician	Feel free to post, Aut	#9	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 20, 2009 07:38 Arkansas Pastor	We don't mind...
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
GeorgeRansom	Which day of creation is Genesis 2:4 referring to?	#10	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1612 February 20, 2009 07:40	These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens* . . .*
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Apologetician	Okay, Larry...	#11	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 20, 2009 07:41 Arkansas Pastor	...please explain the "to-hoo" (without form) and "bo-hoo" (empty) of Genesis 2....
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Apologetician	Larry, in light of the context of Genesis 1...	#12	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 20, 2009 07:57 Arkansas Pastor	..what "day" do you think Gen 2:4 is speaking of...1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th... Humm and huhh?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
GeorgeRansom	The whole, Apo, the Whole.	#13	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1612 February 20, 2009 08:02	nt.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
GeorgeRansom	You explain it.	#14	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 1612 February 20, 2009 08:02	Jeepers creepers, you want me to do all your work.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Apologetician	Larry, I've already done MY work...	#15	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 20, 2009 08:05 Arkansas Pastor	...so, at ease, you don't have to do it for me...I've taught Genesis at least a dozen times over 40 years... You were the one highlighting the issue...I merely wanted your take...
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Apologetician	My original intention in starting this thread...	#16	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 20, 2009 08:22 Arkansas Pastor	was to show how people who take the Bible literally originally often resort to non-literal attempts to mold the Bible into scientific models, most of which are defunct philosophically and scientifically.... It seems we cannot be satisfied with the Genesis account the way God gave it to us.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
AUTigers001		#17	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 525 February 20, 2009 08:36	Apologetician wrote: was to show how people who take the Bible literally originally often resort to non-literal attempts to mold the Bible into scientific models, most of which are defunct philosophically and scientifically.... It seems we cannot be satisfied with the Genesis account the way God gave it to us. I'm not sure that people try to mold the Bible into scientific models... however, if science helps fill in the gaps in one's thinking, what is the problem with that? For instance, if a person wonders about the glory of plant life and studies photosynthesis and concludes "that's how God did it" -- why is that a problem? Has the person "molded the creation story" into a scientific model?, or has science answered a question that thinking people wondered about? "Mom smokes in the car. Jesus is okay with it, but we can't tell Dad." -- Sheldon Cooper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Apologetician	Thanks, Aut...Good thinking....	#18	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 6637 February 20, 2009 08:44 Arkansas Pastor	I'm not sure that people try to mold the Bible into scientific models... however, if science helps fill in the gaps in one's thinking, what is the problem with that? First, it is proven that some try to mold the Bible into scientific models, and second, there is nothing wrong with trying fill in the gaps in one's thinking, even using science with the Bible. For instance, if a person wonders about the glory of plant life and studies photosynthesis and concludes "that's how God did it" -- why is that a problem? Aut, that's how God DOES it now...but is that how He DID it when creating? I think you would agree with me that things happened during the creation process that do not happen now...we know them by revelation and not by science. Has the person "molded the creation story" into a scientific model?, or has science answered a question that thinking people wondered about? Yes and No. To say that God did what He now does in accordance with scientific models, then one has fitted the data of scripture into a mold of science, but if science helps us understand true gaps on our thinking, then good for it...but not all science is "good" science... Thanks for your comments...I do not believe we are all that far apart on this issue, Aut, but we do disagree on details.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
AUTigers001		#19	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 525 February 20, 2009 09:07	Thanks for the reply... I find it thoughtful and respectful and I am grateful for the tone. Maybe we can start fresh and continue pleasant discussion, even though, as you noted, we probably disagree on some details. Please see my comments below. Apologetician wrote: I'm not sure that people try to mold the Bible into scientific models... however, if science helps fill in the gaps in one's thinking, what is the problem with that? First, it is proven that some try to mold the Bible into scientific models, and second, there is nothing wrong with trying fill in the gaps in one's thinking, even using science with the Bible. What method was used to "prove" that some try to mold the Bible into scientific models? Can you offer a study that shows that? I have an opinion that some try to use science to discredit the creation account (unsuccessfully, I might add), but I ahve seen no "proof" that some people try to jam the Bible into a test tube, so to speak. For instance, if a person wonders about the glory of plant life and studies photosynthesis and concludes "that's how God did it" -- why is that a problem? Aut, that's how God DOES it now...but is that how He DID it when creating? I think you would agree with me that things happened during the creation process that do not happen now...we know them by revelation and not by science. Good question... and this could spark a debate on the length of 'creation days' mentioned in the Genesis account. While I agree that "things happened during the creation process that do not happen now", I think that is a different discussion. Has the person "molded the creation story" into a scientific model?, or has science answered a question that thinking people wondered about? Yes and No. To say that God did what He now does in accordance with scientific models, then one has fitted the data of scripture into a mold of science, but if science helps us understand true gaps on our thinking, then good for it...but not all science is "good" science... OK... I can agree that not all science is good science. But, there is a lot of good science -- and I know you agree with that. For you to say that God did NOT use photosynthesis from the very beginning as as unprovable as me saying that He might have. If He chose to create in that way, then that is how He chose to do it. Thanks for your comments...I do not believe we are all that far apart on this issue, Aut, but we do disagree on details. Maybe we're not very far apart -- who knows... "Mom smokes in the car. Jesus is okay with it, but we can't tell Dad." -- Sheldon Cooper
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
QuickzDraw	An EXCELLET post! And Civil!	#20	[url]	[-]
Member Posts: 2207 February 20, 2009 01:20 Admin In Charge	Congratulations, Apo. I'm both shocked and delighted. Your post is not condescending. It it helpful. It moves the discussion along, while disagreeing. It is great! Sing unto the Lord a new song . . .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Progressive Creationism...Does it fit Genesis 1 and 2?	February 19, 2009 03:04	Apologetician
This writer believes it is an attempt	February 19, 2009 03:08	Apologetician
Genesis 1:1-2	February 19, 2009 03:56	GeorgeRansom
I don't think so...	February 19, 2009 03:58	Apologetician
But . . .	February 19, 2009 04:10	GeorgeRansom
Genesis 1:1 - 2ff	February 20, 2009 05:45	Apologetician
Fine, Apo, thematic or not . . .	February 20, 2009 07:31	GeorgeRansom
Which day of creation is Genesis 2:4 referring to?	February 20, 2009 07:40	GeorgeRansom
Larry, in light of the context of Genesis 1...	February 20, 2009 07:57	Apologetician
The whole, Apo, the Whole.	February 20, 2009 08:02	GeorgeRansom
Okay, Larry...	February 20, 2009 07:41	Apologetician
You explain it.	February 20, 2009 08:02	GeorgeRansom
Larry, I've already done MY work...	February 20, 2009 08:05	Apologetician
History of Progressive Creationism	February 20, 2009 05:59	Apologetician
Re: Progressive Creationism...Does it fit Genesis 1 and 2?	February 20, 2009 06:54	AUTigers001
Feel free to post, Aut	February 20, 2009 07:38	Apologetician
My original intention in starting this thread...	February 20, 2009 08:22	Apologetician
Re: Progressive Creationism...Does it fit Genesis 1 and 2?	February 20, 2009 08:36	AUTigers001
Thanks, Aut...Good thinking....	February 20, 2009 08:44	Apologetician
Re: Progressive Creationism...Does it fit Genesis 1 and 2?	February 20, 2009 09:07	AUTigers001
Aut, I will get back to my answer to you...	February 20, 2009 02:10	Apologetician
Fitting the Bible into models of Science	February 21, 2009 04:13	Apologetician
Re: Progressive Creationism...Does it fit Genesis 1 and 2?	February 23, 2009 07:16	AUTigers001
An EXCELLET post! And Civil!	February 20, 2009 01:20	QuickzDraw