Finally Picked a creation stance.

[RickD]

Nevermind, I found a link:http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/al ... _paper.pdf

[Silvertusk]

Slvertusk wrote:
No they were not sinless. A&E were certainly given headship over all the human race and therefore the fall and need for redemption applied to all. Denis Alexander describes them as a sort of Homo Divinus. All events are placed with the context of the Genesis narrative. A&E were called like Abraham to be stewards of God's creation - therefore head of the homo sapien family. Homo Dinvius were the first family that was spiritually alive with God - the first time that God chose to reveal himself to a couple of Neolithic farmers

Again the above is speculation and Alexander goes into a lot more detail than that. But you can read that into the biblical account if you consider that the first part of Genesis is not talking about a singular man but Mankind and only goes to an individual in chapter 2.

I am not 100% convinced of this theory - but I do like it and it has some merit.

Silvertusk, do you have a link that goes into detail on this? I'd like to check it out.

This is from Denis Alexander's book - Creation or Evolution do we have to choose



If I have time I will try and write his model out in more detail.

Like you though I acknowledge that I need to do some more research in this as well - but like I said I do like the theory because it ties everything together nicely and you still have original sin - the need for redemption and the Genesis take as an historical account.

[RickD]

Silvertusk,

I'd really like to see this as an organized creation model. That way I can compare it to the model that Hugh Ross and Reasons.org presents. And I could see the strengths and weaknesses of both models.

[Canuckster1127]

Keep in mind that the focus on original sin as the cause of death is as much an issue for OEC as for TE. In that regard they are subsets of one another.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... s_sin.html

[Silvertusk]

Silvertusk,

I'd really like to see this as an organized creation model. That way I can compare it to the model that Hugh Ross and Reasons.org presents. And I could see the strengths and weaknesses of both models.

The link you have provided is a pretty good summary of some of the conclusions that Denis came up with - but I would recommend the book I linked as so you can get a fuller picture - that is the best resource I know so far as I am new coming into this as well.

[Philip]

SilverTusk wrote: You assume an awful lot about what I believe.

And you assume that I was addressing you PERSONALLY. I was not. I was addressing TE in general.

If you embrace any form of TE, that necessarily means 1) That you believe God guided an evolutionary method of His creation and 2) that the details of the Adam & Eve account are mere parts of an allegory.

"Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them."

Clearly, when bringing before Adam "EVERY beast of the field and every bird of the heavens to see what he would call them., God did not limit the pool from which He brought them to only the beasts in the garden. This suggests to me that there were no others (hominids or whatever) yet available, as "there was not found a helper fit for him." If another hominid (one besides Adam), appropriate to transform into Eve could not have been found by God, then one did not exist.

And if Adam had previously been a hominid of some type, especially in light of how Scripture constructs an unusual story explaining that Eve was created from Adam's rib, why then some allegorical tale about how "the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground?" And THEN another such allegory explaining that "the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." Why creations from "dust," why a "rib?" Why make up things that are not true or are inaccurate, that are foundational to our understanding of man's origins and sin problem? How are we to trust God if He misleads us with some wild, fictional tales - especially as He well knew that one day belief in evolution would cause them to be greatly doubted, even laughed at?

It seems equally absurd when we realize that the man already had nostrils BEFORE he ever received the breath of life "as God "breathed into his (already existing) nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Also, if Adam was transformed into a man from a previously existing hominid, why only post-becoming a man did he actually become "a living creature?" And transformed not JUST into a MAN, have you, but into a living "CREATURE."

If you DISAGREE that if the actual events and creation of Adam and Eve are accurate as to their plain meanings/common understandings, then I think it's fair to say that a truthful account - meaning one that we would clearly understand - would have to written very differently. But why would God present us with a Scriptural explanation (a misleading allegory, and never clarified by other Scriptures), IF false, that He well knew would one day cause great conflict, disagreement and confusion? That makes little sense!

Some of you Hebrew experts need to weigh in on this.

[Silvertusk]

SilverTusk wrote: You assume an awful lot about what I believe.

And you assume that I was addressing you PERSONALLY. I was not. I was addressing TE in general.

If you embrace any form of TE, that necessarily means 1) That you believe God guided an evolutionary method of His creation and 2) that the details of the Adam & Eve account are mere parts of an allegory.

"Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them."

Clearly, when bringing before Adam "EVERY beast of the field and every bird of the heavens to see what he would call them., God did not limit the pool from which He brought them to only the beasts in the garden. This suggests to me that there were no others (hominids or whatever) yet available, as "there was not found a helper fit for him." If another hominid (one besides Adam), appropriate to transform into Eve could not have been found by God, then one did not exist.


If you read the article that RIckD linked you will see that not all TE's believe Genesis is allegorical at all - I am referring more to the Homo Divinus model towards the end.
And if Adam had previously been a hominid of some type, especially in light of how Scripture constructs an unusual story explaining that Eve was created from Adam's rib, why then some allegorical tale about how "the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground?" And THEN another such allegory explaining that "the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." Why creations from "dust," why a "rib?" Why make up things that are not true or are inaccurate, that are foundational to our understanding of man's origins and sin problem? How are we to trust God if He misleads us with some wild, fictional tales - especially as He well knew that one day belief in evolution would cause them to be greatly doubted, even laughed at?

It seems equally absurd when we realize that the man already had nostrils BEFORE he ever received the breath of life "as God "breathed into his (already existing) nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Also, if Adam was transformed into a man from a previously existing hominid, why only post-becoming a man did he actually become "a living creature?" And transformed not JUST into a MAN, have you, but into a living "CREATURE."

If you DISAGREE that if the actual events and creation of Adam and Eve are accurate as to their plain meanings/common understandings, then I think it's fair to say that a truthful account - meaning one that we would clearly understand - would have to written very differently. But why would God present us with a Scriptural explanation (a misleading allegory, and never clarified by other Scriptures), IF false, that He well knew would one day cause great conflict, disagreement and confusion? That makes little sense!

Some of you Hebrew experts need to weigh in on this.

If you read the article that RickD linked you will see that not all TE's believe Genesis is allegorical - especially the part about the Homo Divinus model towards the end.

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/al ... _paper.pdf

[RickD]

Keep in mind that the focus on original sin as the cause of death is as much an issue for OEC as for TE. In that regard they are subsets of one another.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... s_sin.html

Yes, both OEC and TE agree that there was death before Adam's sin. But, since according to the article that I linked above, it appears that they believe that human death also happened before Adam's sin. Because according to their TE belief, Adam wasn't the first human. And we're back to my initial reservations regarding their stance on original sin and the need for Christ's redemption for ALL of humanity. If Adam was only the head of the Jewish race, not the head of all humanity, then I can see a problem, with the orthodox Christian belief that ALL people need a savior.

But I guess they tried to explain that by saying the fall of man in Genesis was symbolic of all people, not just Adam?

[Silvertusk]

Keep in mind that the focus on original sin as the cause of death is as much an issue for OEC as for TE. In that regard they are subsets of one another.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... s_sin.html

Yes, both OEC and TE agree that there was death before Adam's sin. But, since according to the article that I linked above, it appears that they believe that human death also happened before Adam's sin. Because according to their TE belief, Adam wasn't the first human. And we're back to my initial reservations regarding their stance on original sin and the need for Christ's redemption for ALL of humanity. If Adam was only the head of the Jewish race, not the head of all humanity, then I can see a problem, with the orthodox Christian belief that ALL people need a savior.

But I guess they tried to explain that by saying the fall of man in Genesis was symbolic of all people, not just Adam?

They stated that since Adam was the federal head of the human race then the whole human race was effected and also according to the scripture quoted we are in need of redemption. I think that regardless of their creation view - certainly all the people at Biologos believes in the redeeming blood of Christ.

I do like the fact that they are honest to admit that in some areas that they do not know and they (well certainly Denis does) are open to the fact that their models might be proved very wrong in the future. I find that open mindedness very refreshing.

[RickD]

Silvertusk wrote:
They stated that since Adam was the federal head of the human race then the whole human race was effected and also according to the scripture quoted we are in need of redemption. I think that regardless of their creation view - certainly all the people at Biologos believes in the redeeming blood of Christ.

But Silvertusk, according to the article:

Homo divinus were the first humans who were truly spiritually
alive in fellowship with God, providing the spiritual roots of the Jewish faith. Certainly religious beliefs
existed before this time, as people sought after God or gods in different parts of the world, offering their
own explanations for the meaning of their lives, but Homo divinus marked the time at which God chose to
reveal himself and his purposes for humankind for the first time.

According to the article, before Adam was chosen, there were humans alive who "sought after God". So, those humans had a spiritual nature, and many had presumably died, correct? If spiritual death, then physical death, was a result of Adam's sin, then how could these prior humans have died? It's one thing to say that non-human, non-spirit hominids died before Adam sinned, but aren't they saying that humans died before Adam's sin?

I do like the fact that they are honest to admit that in some areas that they do not know and they (well certainly Denis does) are open to the fact that their models might be proved very wrong in the future. I find that open mindedness very refreshing.

Of course humility and honesty are great attributes. And I agree that their models(if you really want to call them models) very well might be proved wrong.

[RickD]

And in Conclusion from the biologos link:

Conclusions
The two tentative models presented here may be seen as a work in progress. Both models are
heavily under-determined by the data, meaning that there is insufficient data to decide either way. Both
models might be false and a third type of model might be waiting in the wings ready to do a much better
job; let us hope so.

The model that does a much better job; the Old Earth Creation model at Reasons.org:http://www.reasons.org/about/our-creati ... l-approach

[PaulSacramento]

My concern with OEC is that, if God created every living being "as is" or directed them to be "as is", then how are we to reconcile some of the more horrific examples of species or even the extinction of others?

[jlay]

And there is evidence for macro evolution as well - looking at the genetic history of organisms themselves. In our DNA we carry around a lot of redundant genes - pseudogenes that were functional in our distant ancestors but have been switched off in our own genomes. Polyploidy changes in plants and animals that give birth to new specicies of animals and plant. Reproductive isolation that gives birth to a new line of species. The fossil record - although incomplete- still raises questions and cannot be discounted. Again everything I have said above is plausible.

Again Silver, you are adopting question begging as the basis for your view. Your statements about DNA make Darwinian presumptions. How do you know pseudogenes were functional in our distant ancestors? Even supposing reduntant Genes, how does that get you from molecules to man? we are in fact discovering functions for what was considered junk all the time. You are presuming things about the genome that you can't prove, and then calling those assumptions evidence. That is an underlying reason to reject Darwinism, yet you instead adopt it as your own. Sorry, but that isn't sound.

[RickD]

My concern with OEC is that, if God created every living being "as is" or directed them to be "as is", then how are we to reconcile some of the more horrific examples of species or even the extinction of others?

What specific "horrific" examples are you having a problem reconciling? If God directed TE, then those same "horrific" examples still have to be reconciled, don't they.

[PaulSacramento]

My concern with OEC is that, if God created every living being "as is" or directed them to be "as is", then how are we to reconcile some of the more horrific examples of species or even the extinction of others?

What specific "horrific" examples are you having a problem reconciling? If God directed TE, then those same "horrific" examples still have to be reconciled, don't they.

IF God directed TE, yes those issues would still be there, not so much if God instill in all living creatures the ability to adapt to their environment and allows for that adaption to be what it will be.
I asked about parasitic wasps awhile back and why God would create such a creature as is.
If God created animals as is and continues to do so, why would he allow the extinction of some?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals
If the world was created for man, why did God create animals that are so dangerous to man?