Printable version
 Email to a friend

arrow_left_short all forums
topic list

Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion

Replies: (page   1   2   3)
Lanny Carlson 02/19/2012 19:19
Ooops!
That's what happens when I type at 6 in the morning!
(I don't know what my excuse is at other times!)
Obviously, I meant 5000 years, not 500.
Sorry about that!
John T 02/19/2012 19:22
No problem! I did wonder about the extra "0" being missing. That makes more sense.
Lanny Carlson 02/19/2012 21:30
Thank you,John,for your post.
Now that I have a little more time,
I will attempt to address some of your comments.

First, I agree that the technological achievments of our ancestors were incredible,
from the pyramids in Egypt and South and Central America,
to the structures at Stonehenge and Easter Island.
Archaeologists have theories about how these feats were accomplished,
but it certainly took a lot of ingenuity and enormous manpower,
and we can but stand in awe of their creations.

As for health and longevity, of course,
there probably isn't much need for discussion.
You obviously take those accounts literally
while I see them as folklore not unlike that of neighboring cultures.
Our conclusions are always going to be shaped
by the assumptions with which we begin.

As for genetic diversity, however,
"perfect genes" has nothing to do with it,
as the individual human genome holds only so much data.
Geneticists say that for a population to have enough diversity
to avoid the problems of inbreeding and remain viable and avoid extinction
requires AT LEAST 100 unrelated individuals.

The same is true of other animal species as well.
There is no way two animals
(or seven pairs of animals, in the case of "clean animals")
could create and sustain a viable population.
That's only one reason I can't take the Genesis Flood account literally either.

Other ancient cultures also had flood stories,
with their own versions of events and characters,
suggesting that there probably was a large regional flood
which had become a part of the collective memory.
But there is no evidence for a global catastrophe,
and the story of re-populating the earth in Genesis
doesn't mention many parts of the world
of which they weren't even aware -
from North America to South America to Southern Africa to Australia.
Their knowledge of the geography of this one planet alone was limited -
and we haven't even touched upon their limited knowledge
of the vastness of Universe!

Please don't misunderstand me.
Just because I don't take everything in the Bible literally
doesn't mean I don't take it seriously.
There is much in the Scriptures which is historically valid
and some of which which archaelogical evidence has upheld.
More importantly, there is much theological truth in the Bible,
and that's far more important than its scientific or historical accuracy.
Lanny Carlson 02/21/2012 17:04
John,

I don't know if you want to continue this discussion or not,
but I had just a couple of additional comments.

First, I'm sorry I didn't respond to your quote from Jim Owen.
I understand why you quoted him,
because we do disagree over some of the very issues he mentioned.
I do think his picture is a little bit of a caricature
and seems to belittle or misread the reasons for the differences -
my beliefs are NOT based on being "embarrassed" not to be "modern."
But, yes, the differences are there.

Another thought also occurred to me yesterday.
There are those who have said, who have said to me in these forums,
that if we don't believe, for example,
that the creation story in Genesis is literally true,
how can we trust anything the Bible says?
But for me, I would turn the question on its head -
I simply cannot accept the creation story literally
because it flies in the face of so much else that I believe and know to be true.
Does that mean that I have to throw out the entire Bible,
and can't believe anything it says?
(As for Leviticus, the same could be said of the laws
calling for people to be stoned to death
for breaking the Sabbath or even for disobeying their parents,
or God's later calling the Hebrews to commit genocide
against the nations they displaced.
If I can't accept these things as anything more
than the misunderstanding of an earlier generation, as Barclay suggests,
does that mean I can't trust anything Jesus says about God in the New Testament either?).
I'm afraid that insisting on literalism and inerrancy
can and does create a real stumbling block
for some people who might be open to the deeper truths of the Bible,
but can't accept its prescientific cosmology.

(I'm not suggesting that YOU are saying
a person can't believe in evolution and be a Christian,
but I'm afraid there people who take that position,
to the detriment of the Kingdom.
That's why I appreciate a community where we can disagree,
and yet still accept one another as brothers and sisters in Christ)>
John T 02/21/2012 17:26
Thanks Lanny, I appreciate that. Good comments. And on certain points, as the Genesis one, I am happy to agree to disagree. I've used the term "It's not a salvation issue" to work these things out. I went through the struggle of coming to terms with baptism differences years ago. I grew up with and still believe that adult baptism is the proper way. The church that my wife grew up in and that we currently attend is a Reformed church (in what denomination did you pastor, by the way?), and practices infant baptism. And I struggled with this as we were expecting our first child. I researched thoroughly both sides of the issue and did a lot of reading and prayer. I concluded my thoughts with a decision to have our daughter baptized in our church as an infant, and decided that it was certainly not a salvation issue. She will make her own decision for Christ later in life - and frankly, if she desires to be baptized as an adult, that's OK too! That's exactly what "Anabaptist" means, after all.

There are other issues, though, that we disagree on, such as the deity of Christ, that are salvation issues. If Christ is not the Son of God as the Bible claims, then his death does nothing to save us from our sins - and yes, this leads to the atonement and how we are saved. While I am happy to say that Genesis is not directly a salvation issue, Christ's deity and his saving blood is most certainly one, and that is a point on which I will never bend. We cannot be saved through anything else! He is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through Him! He is the door, that we must go through. For God so loved the world, that he send his Son, (yes His son!), that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life! The only way to everlasting life is through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior! That is a salvation issue. And, yes, I will stand with that truth in the face of other religions who claim that they will gain entrance into heaven without Christ, they are false, he is the only one who can grant salvation.

On that I am most firm.

And the Virgin Birth, well that fits in there too with Christ. The saving power of Christ falls apart when we don't accept the virgin birth. If he is born of man's seed, then he is born into sin, and no longer has the power to save.

These are critical things.

Genesis is something that I came to believe in my early 20's. My teachers, at a Christian high school no less, taught evolution as the means of life, and I always found it odd that God would create through such an accidental process. I started reading and learning about it, and some truths began to show up - sin started with Adam and Eve's fall, as in Adam all sin, through Christ, the last Adam, we are saved. I also started reading the word, and found that it was not written at all like an allegory, but rather a historical account. The stories include details and specifics and numbers that a fairy tale would not! Why on earth would God include the ages of all of the people in the historical records if they aren't real people, if they were just made up -- it really makes no sense! If you were writing a book of history, you would do this. If you were writing a book of allegories and stories, there would be no point. And if God wanted to insert millions of years in there, he could have easily used words to show time passing, yet he does not! He says, and there was evening and there was morning, the first day! It is a historical account. Yes, the Bible is profitable for everything we need! I do believe that salvation is very possible without the belief in a historical Genesis, but a believe in evolution hampers much of our faith, and will block a full understanding of the story of the Bible from beginning to end.

Respectfully and joyfully,
John
Lanny Carlson 02/21/2012 19:44
Thank you, John,
for your very thoughtful and thorough response.

As for your first question,
I was a pastor for 33 years in the United Methodist Church.
When I retired, I was looking for a church with a contemporary worship style,
and "coincidentally," a new congregation had started just a month before we moved!
Though I retain my United Methodist membership
(the saying in the South where I grew up was,
"I was Methodist born, and Methodist bred,
And when I die I'll be Methodist dead!"
That despite the fact that my favorite uncle was a Southern Baptist pastor),
the church we attend is affiliated with the Reformed Church in America.
Yes, there are theological differences
(where would I find a church where I didn't have theological differences?!)
but the people are wonderful, and I love the music!
Isn't it amazing how music can transcend so many other things,
and can touch our spirit beyond the level even of the words?

You said you came to believe in Genesis in your early 20's.
I was probably in my early 20's, probably younger,
when I began seriously questioning a literal interpretation of Genesis!
I don't equate "evolution" with "accidental,"
but appreciate the image evangelical missionary E. Stanley Jones used in 1942.
I shared this earlier, but here it is again:
"God would be as necessary for evolution as for a once-for-all creation. Which takes the more intelligence - to strike a billiard ball straight into the pocket at one stroke, or to strike a ball, which in turn strikes another, and that another, and that another, until the last one goes into the pocket? Obviously, the latter stroke. God seemingly creates something, which creates something, and the whole thing moves on to a moral universe in which you and I stand, not pushed from behind by blind forces, but beckoned to from before by ideals..."
(E. Stanley Jones, "Abundant Living," p. 7)
Today, that may be an over-simplified description of evolution,
but I still find it fascinating and convincing!

On Feb 14, I also "accidentally" found a book on the clearance shelf at Pamida,
and I devoured it, it was so good.
Michael Dowd was a fundamentalist
and when evolution was taught in his conservative Christian college,
he was infuriated.
But the book describes how he has come to embrace evolution
and sees it as a worldview which can actually bridge the gap
between science and religion.
I won't try to describe 350 pages in a forum post,
but would invite you to check out his book,
"Thank God for Evolution,"
and/or his website, http://thankgodforevolution.com/
I don't know the last time I was so excited about a book, and I read a lot!

(By the way, a few minutes ago I found this article online
which describes Augustine's views about Genesis and literalism,
and makes the same point about it being a stumbling block
in communicating with non-Christians which I made earlier.
Quoting Augustine, in a time long before today's level of scientific knowledge,
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"

The article also addresses the question of genealogies and dating, etc.,
even citing Francis Schaeffer's problem with trying to use them to determine time.
The article is here:
http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/earth_age_christian.htm

I also appreciate your comments about some of those things
you do believe are essential, and I have no intention
to try to convince you otherwise.
I will simply say again that the issues are at least partly a matter
of how we use words and how those words are interpreted.
I discussed at length in the thread, "The Human One,"
the Biblical meaning of the term "Son of God,"
which was the equivalent of "Christ" or "Messiah."
I don't dent the divinity of Jesus either,
but see it as a full manifestation of that of the Divine which is in all of us(created in God's image, to use the Genesis phrase),
and an example of what we are all created to be, and can become,
if we take John seriously.
And I also value the centrality of the Cross,
I simply hold to a different theory of the atonement
(the Moral Influence Theory) which many others through the ages have held.
Of course I don't believe our different views are simply or entirely semantic.
But I do think a lot of it has to do with how we interpret things.
In Dowd's book, a lot of these issues are addressed,
and he provides an interpretation and understanding
of these and other doctrinal issues within the context
of an evolutionary worldview.
(He even helped me to appreciate the concept of "original sin,"
not from the point of view of a literal Garden of Eden
but from the perspective of the evolution of the brain.
While much of his book was really giving clearer expression
to things I already believed, his perspective on this was new to me!)

Well, I'm running late.
I have to bring my wife to the hospital for today's second antibiotic IV.
This has been a long battle, and I pray she will finally find some relief.

Grace and Peace,
Lanny
TRWord 02/26/2012 15:08
Hi Lanny

You said:

“The answer is this - it is not God who has changed;
it is men's knowledge of him that has changed.
Men wrote these things because they did not know any better;
that was the stage which their knowledge of God had reached...
It was only when Jesus came that they saw fully and completely
what God has always been like.”

Where ever I go I find persons young and old struggling with the old testament and the drastic difference between it and the new.

The difficulty, is in seeing what you said here.

It seems that Paul had the same difficulty speaking to the Hebrews.

I have tried with not much success to use Paul’s statement here:

Heb. 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.

As his way of saying that our relationship with God hasn’t changed but it’s our understanding of it through Jesus Christ which has.

One in Christ

Christopher
Ray 02/29/2012 09:48
witness the cultural influences on our relationship with the Lord:
http://rvl-on.com/clips/the-tabernacle/
Lanny Carlson 02/29/2012 10:52
Wow! I hadn't heard of Ray Vander Laan before,
and I really enjoyed the link.
I also found a website criticizing him
becasue of his close ties with Rob Bell,
which only made me like him more!
Thanks for sharing.
Ted C 03/02/2012 01:27
1 Corinthians 15:1-8
"Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."

Galatians 1:8,9
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"
(page   1   2   3)
arrow_up_short start of topic