Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Evolution or Creation Science?
Source:
Orthodox Church in America
URL Source: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-law ... /evolution-or-creation-science
Published: May 30, 2012
Author: Fr. Lawrence Farley
Post Date: 2018-02-14 09:59:32 by A Pole
Keywords: orthodox, creation, evolution
Views: 24424
Comments: 211
In my years as a priest and of sharing the Gospel, I have heard many reasons offered for not becoming a Christian: scandals associated with clergy, the wealth of the Church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. etc. I thought I had more or less heard it all, and so was unprepared for a reason one young man offered to justify his rejection of Orthodoxy—namely, that dinosaurs were not in the Bible. I blinked a few times, and was left temporarily speechless (something of a rarity with me, to which those who know me well can attest). His idea was that since dinosaurs obviously existed (their skeletons adorn our museums), then if the Bible was God’s Word, he should be able to read about dinosaurs in the Bible. Since he could not find them there (I refrained from mentioning certain fundamentalist interpretations of Leviathan and Behemoth in the Book of Job), then obviously the Bible could not be God’s Word and he could not remain Orthodox. He was referring of course to the old supposed conflict between Science and Religion, and in this arm-wrestling match, it was clear to him that Science had won. No Biblical dinosaurs, no more church-going. So, what’s the deal about dinosaurs? Why aren’t they in the creation stories in Genesis? Apart from the absurdity of supposing they’re not there because they aren’t mentioned by name (the duck-billed platypus isn’t mentioned by name either), it’s a valid question, and one that leads us headlong into the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Interpretation of the creation stories too often degenerates into an argument between the theory of evolution vs. what is sometimes called “creation science”. By “evolution” the average non-scientific person means the notion that Man descended from the apes, or from a common ancestor of apes and men. The name “Darwin” is usually thrown about, regardless of how the ideas in his On the Origin of Species have fared in the scientific community since Darwin wrote it in 1859, and most people’s knowledge of evolution is confined to looking at the famous evolutionary chart in National Geographic, showing how smaller hominids kept walking until they became human beings like us. By “creation science” is meant the view that the Genesis stories are to be taken as scientifically or historically factual, so that the earth (often considered to be comparatively young) was created by God in six twenty-four hour days. Since the time of the “Scopes monkey trial”, the argument between “evolutionists” and “creationists” has been going strong, and is often fought in the nation’s courts and departments of education. Arm-wrestling indeed. Happily for people with weak arms like myself, the Church does not call us to take part in this arm-wrestling match. The creation stories in Genesis were not written, I suggest, to give us a blow-by-blow account of how we got here. Rather, they were written to reveal something fundamental about the God of Israel and the privileged status of the people who worshipped Him. We assume today that the ancients wanted to know how we got here, and how we were created. In fact, they were mostly uninterested in such cosmic questions, and the creation myths that existed in the ancient near east spoke to other issues. Most people back then, if they thought of the question of cosmic origins at all, assumed that the world had always existed, and the various gods they worshipped were simply part of that eternal backdrop. That is where the creation stories were truly revolutionary. Their main point was not merely that God created the world; it was that the tribal God of the Jewish people was sovereign over the world. We take monotheism for granted, and spell “god” with a capital “G”. For us, God is singular and unique by definition. It was otherwise in the ancient near east. That age was populated by different gods, each with his or her own power, agenda, and career. And this is the point: in the Genesis stories, none of these gods are there. In the opening verses we read, “In the beginning God (Hebrew Elohim, a Jewish name for their God) created the heavens and the earth” and “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven.” The creating deity is called “Elohim” and “Yahweh”—the names for the Jewish God. Other rival deities are simply not there. It is as if they do not exist. They had been dethroned and demoted by their omission from the story. The opening verse of Genesis is a salvo fired into the world of polytheism, a ringing declaration that their gods were nobodies. We keep reading and discover that this Jewish God made everything that existed by His simple word of command. He simply said, “Light—exist!” (two words in the original Hebrew), and light sprang into existence. In the creation myths of the pagan cultures of that time, the gods created by lots of huffing and puffing (in an Old Babylonian myth, the god Enlil uses a hoe), but not so the God of the Jews. He is above all that. For Him, a simple sovereign word suffices. In fact, in the first chapter of Genesis, all the cosmos was brought into being by Him uttering ten simple commands (yep, it does foreshadow the Ten Commandments, given later). And Man is portrayed in these stories as the sum and crown of creation, giving the human person a dignity never before known. Man is said to have been made “in the image of God”—a revolutionary statement, since in those days, only kings were thought to be in the divine image. Despite this, Genesis invests the common man with this royal dignity. And even more: it says that woman shares this image and rule with him. In the ancient near east, women were chattel; in Genesis, she is a co-ruler of creation with the man. The stories of Genesis cannot be read apart from their original cultural context, and when we read them as they were meant to be read, we see that the creation story was a gauntlet thrown down before the prevailing culture of its time. The creation stories affirmed that the Jewish God, the tribal deity of a small and internationally unimportant people, alone made the whole cosmos. That meant that He was able to protect His People. It meant that, properly speaking, all the pagan nations should abandon their old gods and worship Him. These stories affirm that the Jewish God is powerful enough to have created everything by a few simple orders. They affirm that Man is not the mere tool and slave of the gods, whose job it is to feed the deities and care for their temples. Rather, Man is a co-ruler with God, His own image and viceroy on earth. And Woman is not a thing to be sold, inferior to Man. Rather, she shares Man’s calling and dignity. These are the real lessons of Genesis. It has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution. Its true lessons are located elsewhere. So what about dinosaurs? I happily leave them in the museums, to the makers of movies (I love “Jurassic Park”), and the writers of National Geographic. The creation stories of Genesis give me lots to ponder and to live up to without multiplying mysteries. As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-149) not displayed.
.
.
.
#150. To: GarySpFC (#141)
Good to see you, Brutha!
Today Deism is similar to atheism. Pretty spot-on on both counts. Although I would also add that today's "Deist" appears to straddle the fence more as more "Agnostic."
Now hold on thar, Baba-Looey... You've leaped into a few fires here. 1) The crux of Christianity -- a simple belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- requires NO "organized religion." 2) Without "Ideals" you have NO basis of morality or standard of "Good" vs Evil." Are you saying YOU possess no "ideals"? 3) As Pilate asked Jesus Christ, I'd ask you: "What is THE 'Truth'"?)
If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else. Excellent examples that demonstrate Purpose and Reason of a personal Creator-God vs. Random Chance of a Chemical-Reaction "god". I do not believe however that Buck has committed to an "Atheism." He's just anti-organize religion, which admittedly has NOT helped many develop their faith.
You back again and feeling better? It's good to "see" you. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Oldest before Qumran discoveries. The article even says that. There's no telling if Nash is a Torah fragment or a teaching document as commanded in Deuteronomy 6:8. Nash could just be that a Torah teaching document like we see in the deutercanonical works like Ben Sira. What's interesting is we still don't have the Qumran discoveries fully analyzed and examined. I'm currently in a discussion on another site on the book of Daniel which Qumran caves 1-4 sheds a bit more light on: What's interesting is the discovery provides evidence Daniel was in fact considered canonical in the 2nd century BC. It also provides evidence of wider circulation which evokes a call for an earlier date of the autograph than what 19th and 20th century scholars previously determined. Lastly the Qumran Daniel fragments follow the later Masoretic Text (MT) and does not contain the apocryphal chapters seen in the Greek.
Ping to above. Great to see you here.
The Bible is historically ACCURATE. Whether "hand-me-down" oral history, written on scrap papyrus, or through Moses who spoke directly to God or the prophets who also spoke to God, or transcribed His thoughts TO them on our behalf. DATES. PEOPLE. PLACES. EVENTS. All documented to be absolutely correct. Many have tried to discredit any and all of it, un-successfully. The numerous prophesies are also ALL come true. How can you explain this degree of accuracy from "hearsay, innuendo, gossip, and hand-me-down info"? Q: If you believe in God as you state, it isn't because you've been "mind-controlled" to any degree. Or is it? What are the qualities of this universe, this life and our human existence that compel you to possess any faith at all?
That's what I believe. I also believe Hebrew was the oldest language. I also think there were written records that go far further back than 1000 years BC.
Yeah, I thought I kinda covered that. Unless you have something else in mind.
Which Bible are you referring to? There are a lot of them, with major and minor variations, so please be ACCURATE, yourself. In fact, there are as many Christian churches as variations of the Bible ... with some Christian churches renouncing some Bibles "as the seeds of the Devil." When observing the world around myself, I question the entire experience process. Some entity created all of the Universe; that being is unknowable. I call that being the creator.
I have always believed in any faith that saw Jesus as the son of God. I have attended many Christian churches. I see no churches (legitimate) that saw any Christian as a seed of the devil.
So you bring up a valid point. What is a "legitimate" church?
The Koine Greek for church is ekklesia. It literally means “a called-out assembly or congregation.” The church is the people and not a building or organization.
So give me an example of a "legitimate" vs. an "illegitimate" church. Who makes such a determination? Who has the authority to enforce such a judgement? This is a fundamental problem with any organized religion. It is all dogma and when I suggest this, it is not limited to any religion anywhere. This is the reason for continuous conflict, for example: Islam vs. Christianity.
A legitimate church would be one that accepts God's word as found in the Bible as truth. An example of an illegitimate church would be one who claims to follow God's word as found in the Bible, but they ignore scriptures. Don't trust it as truth. Or they add thing's to try and make an excuse for something they don't have faith in. An example of an illegitimate church would be Methodists as they pretend to marry faggots.
The organized religion quote. Liberals and commies like saying they are against organized religion. The alternative is unorganized religion which is chaos. There is never any truth because it is chaotic and everyone says they have truth, except it contradicts what someone else thinks is true. So that is just chaotic tickling your ear to feel good.
OK. So lets say you have an established rule for interdenominational differentiation of legitimacy vs. illegitimacy and we all accept it. How is it applied to religions outside of Christianity such as the example I cited in my earlier post?
I am neither a "liberal or a commie" and I abhor organized religion. So, you will have to redefine your statement. Why is that a problem?
"You will know them by their fruits"
+100
Let's just go with the King James Version for the moment. When observing the world around myself, I question the entire experience process. Some entity created all of the Universe; that being is unknowable. I call that being the creator. Thanks for answering the questions, honestly.
Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?"
So, I purchased a variation of the Bible called, "Modern English Version" a few years ago which attempts to use contemporary English as a way of describing the scripture based on King James Version. My wife took the Bible to the local minister for evaluation and he said, "it was of the Devil." How did he get that authority? My wife wanted a book burning party which I did not permit.
How did he get that authority? There are many Bibles that attempt to "modernize" the language of Olde English" KJV. The problem with many of these "modern" translations or interpretations -- crucial meanings are lost, changed, and lest I say it -- subverted. FWIW, I myself use both the KJV as well as the New King James Version -- with help from supplemental King James Bible Study manuals and Commentary, matching up key verses. Buck, I did a quick check up on the "Modern English Version" -- at this particular website link, they seem to concur with your wife's Minister (you are blessed to have a wife who seeks the truth from the Word.) They compare and contrast some verse examples, gauging interpretational changes in meaning that do matter. (I haven't time to examine it at the moment; Perhaps Red can also weigh in on this issue.) http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/mev/satanic_counterfeit.htm
His discernment of authority comes from The Holy Spirit which will NOT compromise on The Word of God.
Isn't that act "non-objective?" Isn't it called "revelation?"
One can never erase human conceptions. Even the Bible goes into discussions of this. If a church genuinely believes in Jesus Christ and promotes the good will that Christ proposed, I can accept it.
no gnu taxes: One can never erase human conceptions. Even the Bible goes into discussions of this. If a church genuinely believes in Jesus Christ and promotes the good will that Christ proposed, I can accept it. You didn't answer any my questions with any capability of direct information or discussion. You glossed over my questions as though I am a student of yours awaiting a paddle board for not adhering to your dogma, which I am not. I will give you one more try: Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?" Answer the question in a direct way.
Because a lot of people have a lot of different ideas and want their own spin on it but does not make t them legitimate just because they say they are Christian. By their fruits you'll know them. As in if they follow the actual teachings. You'll have to discern that yourself.
I did answer your question in a direct way. People will have differences in the details about how Christianity should be practiced, but that doesn't change what Christianity is.
Sure it does. According to Liberator, the Holy Ghost ensures an appropriate interpretation of the Word of God. How? There are what, 500+ Christian faiths all practicing different rites & rituals across the planet with variations of "God's Word?"
How? Through a local snake handler that claims to have the power of the Lord or by adhering to Tammy Faye that claims the same dialogue?
Most differences are about methods of worship, about what you should or should not eat, and other minutiae. The core belief remains the same.
From Christian dogma, irrespective of the religious sects, and when we strip away rites and traditions exactly what is it? Where is the discernment to learn or understand what that core belief is all about? Moreover, I need to understand the reasons for even learning about all this stuff. You see the light or sumthin?
the belief that Christ is the the son of God and defines what is right, and that the holy spirit guides us about this.
Most of the world doesn't adhere do your definition of what is "right." In fact, Judaism abhors your idea. Also, Islam does, as well. Including Christianity and the hundreds of variations, thereof, these three major religions form the Abraham religious followers composed of BILLIONS of followers would reject your opinion in a heartbeat. Within internal Christian concepts and denominations varying about standards of THEIR interpretations has little to do with me. Your opinion is subjective and there is NO objective evidence at all.
The MEV isn't a bad bible at all. It uses modern vernacular, follows generally the text of the KJV, uses formal equivalence to translate just as the KJV did. As a modern version of KJV, it's not bad at all. I can't imagine how anyone calls it "of the Devil". The Elizabethan English of the KJV is not for everyone. And reading the Bible in stilted English from hundreds of years ago does not contribute to understanding what you are reading.
http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/mev/satanic_counterfeit.htm I inspected that page and consider it over the top. They spend a lot of time complaining about the nuances of copyright law (which apply even more to copyrights being renewed for versions like NIV and others than to the MEV). MEV was only complete in 2013. So they don't need to worry much about renewing a copyright to create a new derivative copyright to protect their profits for some years yet. Again, NIV and other big publishers routinely make rather shocking revisions to their current versions just to keep getting new derivative copyrights issued. As to the samples of text comparisons between KJV and MEV, their complaints seem pretty minor if that is the extent of how much the MEV has wandered, ever so slightly, away from the KJV's intended meanings. buckeroo, don't dump your MEV. It's fine. So are a handful of other similar modern KJV paraphrases that are similar to it. Nothing seriously wrong with any of them even if you can find a verse or two to quibble over. The vast majority of text renderings are accurate enough.
Comments (190 - 211) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#151. To: GarySpFC (#141)
Deism was far different at that time, than what we see today. As an example, they [believed] the Lord controlled nature.
#152. To: buckeroo, GarySpFC (#142)
You just don't seem to understand that organized religions are full of silly traditions and impractical ideas and ideals that do not respect or understand TRUTH about the world around us.
#153. To: GarySpFC, buckeroo (#143)
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter.
#154. To: GarySpFC (#141)
#155. To: Tooconservative (#124)
(Edited)
The oldest fragment we have of Hebrew scripture is the Nash Papyrus. It dates to around 100 BC to 150 BC, or so we're told.
#156. To: GarySpFc (#155)
#157. To: buckeroo, GarySpFC (#146)
...Thousands of years of human history beyond hearsay, innuendo, gossip and hand-me-down information from dogmatic approaches of mesmerizing mind control.
#158. To: Liberator (#157)
The Bible is historically ACCURATE. Whether "hand-me-down" oral history, written on scrap papyrus, or through Moses who spoke directly to God or the prophets who also spoke to God, or transcribed His thoughts TO them on our behalf.
#159. To: redleghunter (#155)
Oldest before Qumran discoveries. The article even says that. There's no telling if Nash is a Torah fragment or a teaching document as commanded in Deuteronomy 6:8. Nash could just be that a Torah teaching document like we see in the deutercanonical works like Ben Sira.
#160. To: Liberator (#157)
The Bible is historically ACCURATE. Whether "hand-me-down" oral history, written on scrap papyrus, or through Moses who spoke directly to God or the prophets who also spoke to God, or transcribed His thoughts TO them on our behalf.
Q: If you believe in God as you state, it isn't because you've been "mind-controlled" to any degree. Or is it? What are the qualities of this universe, this life and our human existence that compel you to possess any faith at all?
#161. To: buckeroo (#160)
Which Bible are you referring to? There are a lot of them, with major and minor variations, so please be ACCURATE, yourself. In fact, there are as many Christian churches as variations of the Bible ... with some Christian churches renouncing some Bibles "as the seeds of the Devil."
#162. To: no gnu taxes (#161)
I see no churches (legitimate) that saw any Christian as a seed of the devil.
#163. To: buckeroo (#162)
What is a "legitimate" church?
#164. To: redleghunter (#163)
#165. To: buckeroo (#164)
(Edited)
So give me an example of a "legitimate" vs. an "illegitimate" church. Who makes such a determination?
#166. To: buckeroo (#164)
This is a fundamental problem with any organized religion.
#167. To: A K A Stone (#165)
#168. To: A K A Stone (#166)
Liberals and commies like saying they are against organized religion.
The alternative is unorganized religion which is chaos.
#169. To: buckeroo (#162)
#170. To: no gnu taxes (#169)
"You will know them by their fruits"
#171. To: buckeroo (#160)
Which Bible are you referring to?
#172. To: no gnu taxes (#169)
"You will know them by their fruits"
#173. To: Liberator (#171)
Let's just go with the King James Version for the moment.
#174. To: buckeroo, redleghunter (#173)
So, I purchased a variation of the Bible called, "Modern English Version" a few years ago which attempts to use contemporary English as a way of describing the scripture based on King James Version. My wife took the Bible to the local minister for evaluation and he said, "it was of the Devil."
#175. To: buckeroo (#173)
How did he [the Minister] get that authority?
#176. To: Liberator (#175)
His discernment of authority comes from The Holy Spirit which will NOT compromise on The Word of God.
#177. To: buckeroo (#172)
Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?"
#178. To: buckeroo (#167)
(Edited)
#179. To: no gnu taxes (#177)
buckeroo: Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?"
#180. To: buckeroo (#179)
#181. To: buckeroo (#179)
#182. To: no gnu taxes, Liberator (#181)
I did answer your question in a direct way. People will have differences in the details about how Christianity should be practiced, but that doesn't change what Christianity is.
#183. To: A K A Stone (#180)
(Edited)
You'll have to discern that yourself.
#184. To: buckeroo (#182)
#185. To: no gnu taxes (#184)
The core belief remains the same.
#186. To: buckeroo (#185)
From Christian dogma, irrespective of the religious sects, and when we strip away rites and traditions exactly what is it?
#187. To: no gnu taxes (#186)
the belief that Christ is the the son of God and defines what is right, and that the holy spirit guides us about this.
#188. To: buckeroo, Liberator (#173)
#189. To: Liberator, buckeroo (#174)
Buck, I did a quick check up on the "Modern English Version" -- at this particular website link, they seem to concur with your wife's Minister (you are blessed to have a wife who seeks the truth from the Word.) They compare and contrast some verse examples, gauging interpretational changes in meaning that do matter. (I haven't time to examine it at the moment; Perhaps Red can also weigh in on this issue.)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]