JinaRicci
New Member
My question is why were they excluded? What were the specifics? Since we have faith in the Bible, why is it not applicable here? When do we use its guidelines?
Creationism & Evolution
- Thread starter goldielocs
- Start date
My question is why were they excluded? What were the specifics? Since we have faith in the Bible, why is it not applicable here? When do we use its guidelines?
Poohbear
Fearfully Wonderfully Made
These are questions I would like to know the answers too.
I know God wants us to have faith in His Holy Word, but I just wonder why these religious authorities and groups were the ones who decided what books were put into the Bible. What were their credentials? What was their reputation? What was their relationship with God like? Were they in unity when making the Biblical canon? Why is there such a division about God's word today?
While continuing in the Christian faith, I also like to keep an open mind.
But in all honesty, I took a theology class during college a few years back, and we discussed the Gnostic gospels in particular. I read a few excerpts from the Gnostic gospels, and they seemed very off based, but that's just my discernment/opinion/or whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
And I just skimmed through the Book of Jubilees, and it mentioned some things that are already in the Bible (For instance, Moses with the commandments). Maybe it was left out because of redundancy? But there are things in the Bible that are redundant (such as some stories of Jesus in the Four Gospels in the New Testaments). And other things in the Book of Jubilees were difficult for me to follow. However, there are some things in the Bible that are difficult for me to follow as well.
Last edited:
HeChangedMyName
Well-Known Member
To understand why, when and who decided to exclude certain text from the current Canon of the Bible requires a historical study. I know from one of my classes that many of the books that were popular at the time of the writings were exluded because according to the religious authorities of that time, the books or writings were not in line with the rest of the commonly accepted writings.
There are the books of the Apocrypha and then there are the books known as the pseudepigrapha. I believe the Book of Enoch falls into the category of the latter. What kept them out of the canon was that they had contained information in them that may not have been confirmed by another religious authority. I have read the Book of Enoch but I wouldn't recommend a babe in Christ reading it because one can begin to lean on that book alone as THE authority. I read it alongside my Bible and used it just to verify for myself whether or not it was quoted in the Bible like I heard it had been.
Now, with that being said, I don't think there is anything wrong with studying and learning things from historical writers who had an opinion or what they believed to be revelation from God. However, I do believe that the current Bible is as it is because God wanted it that way.
Think of it like this, there are many writers nowadays who write on their testimonies according to the Word and their interpretation and application according to the Word of God and we don't discount them as being heretics(well some of them are but the majority don't get classified as such)
The Bible speaks about Enoch being taken up. He didn't die a natural death. His whole being was taken up with God because God found favor in him. This is suppose to be the same Enoch who is the writer of the Book of Enoch. . . . .my question when I finished my study is this: If he was taken up with God, then when did he write the book? How did the book get back here? If someone else wrote it based upon Enoch's story, then was the storyteller the real Enoch?
Jesus didn't write anything, so his experiences are recorded by other people who were with him. Enoch is written in the first person. Sooooooo, I personally think it's a good read, very interesting, but I don't believe it belongs in the Bible. Just my honest opinion.
There are the books of the Apocrypha and then there are the books known as the pseudepigrapha. I believe the Book of Enoch falls into the category of the latter. What kept them out of the canon was that they had contained information in them that may not have been confirmed by another religious authority. I have read the Book of Enoch but I wouldn't recommend a babe in Christ reading it because one can begin to lean on that book alone as THE authority. I read it alongside my Bible and used it just to verify for myself whether or not it was quoted in the Bible like I heard it had been.
Now, with that being said, I don't think there is anything wrong with studying and learning things from historical writers who had an opinion or what they believed to be revelation from God. However, I do believe that the current Bible is as it is because God wanted it that way.
Think of it like this, there are many writers nowadays who write on their testimonies according to the Word and their interpretation and application according to the Word of God and we don't discount them as being heretics(well some of them are but the majority don't get classified as such)
The Bible speaks about Enoch being taken up. He didn't die a natural death. His whole being was taken up with God because God found favor in him. This is suppose to be the same Enoch who is the writer of the Book of Enoch. . . . .my question when I finished my study is this: If he was taken up with God, then when did he write the book? How did the book get back here? If someone else wrote it based upon Enoch's story, then was the storyteller the real Enoch?
Jesus didn't write anything, so his experiences are recorded by other people who were with him. Enoch is written in the first person. Sooooooo, I personally think it's a good read, very interesting, but I don't believe it belongs in the Bible. Just my honest opinion.
GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I
New Member
I read that the Book of Jubilees author didn't believe in the resurrection, a necessary Jewish tenet that would have carried through to christianity.
I had to admit that it is a little unsettling to read things that aren't the norm. It makes the mind wonder and you sometimes worry about whether G-d is truly in control or not. It's a real temptation at times because the info read does not fall into line with what you were taught as the absolute truth. That's the biggest danger I see...losing faith while exposing oneself to things.
HeChangedMyName
Well-Known Member
Yessssss!!!!!! That is what happened to Eve when she slipped up and sinned. She entertained a possibility outside of God's absolute truth. I'm sure life would be different if she had recognized what was really going on and stopped the enemy in his tracks.
Poohbear
Fearfully Wonderfully Made
This is somewhat how I felt when reading parts of the Book of Jubilees and the Gnostic gospels.
moonglowdiva
New Member
I find that this is quite interesting how the OP started off with something entirely different and now the discussion has gone off on a tangent. You know that's how rumors get started. I do believe that OP has said what she was going to do.
Prudent1
Well-Known Member
I do believe that my have been the still small voice of your souls....
goldielocs
New Member
All I could do was laugh at this. You're right, we have decided what we're going to do, but I love the discussion. I've been very busy with homeschooling and my own school work so I haven't gotten a chance to post.
We (my DH and I) read some of the gnostic texts about 2 years ago and it was unsettling for him so we backed off. I am fine with them because the basics are the same. Christ is my savior and I'm waiting for Him to come back. Gnostic texts aren't for everyone. I'm not saying they aren't legit, but I agree one should be careful.
Take care.
discobiscuits
New Member
who said that any animals died before sin entered the earth realm? i have not read every word in the bible so i'd like to see that because i was never taught that and have yet to read that.
the 1st possible animal death was when God clothed them after they sinned.
man and animals were vegetarians (or so it reads that way to me in the word and i've not heard any religious teacher teach otherwise).
i have always felt creationism and evolutionism could go side by side (to an extent and my explanation is WAY too long for this post). i was educated at christian schools most of my life beginning in kindergarten and i was taught both. evolution never caused me to doubt God's creation, it actually made me see how evolution theory in the hands of a believer could give scientific credence to creation which is still something one chooses to believe or not w/ no natural evidence.
the 1st possible animal death was when God clothed them after they sinned.
man and animals were vegetarians (or so it reads that way to me in the word and i've not heard any religious teacher teach otherwise).
i have always felt creationism and evolutionism could go side by side (to an extent and my explanation is WAY too long for this post). i was educated at christian schools most of my life beginning in kindergarten and i was taught both. evolution never caused me to doubt God's creation, it actually made me see how evolution theory in the hands of a believer could give scientific credence to creation which is still something one chooses to believe or not w/ no natural evidence.
blazingthru
Well-Known Member
I agree, I tried to read some of those books and for me it was just to much it didn't even feel right to me. I think it causes doubt. the bible was put together with much prayer and reverently asking God to help make the decisions of what books were necessary for our salvation and so we have the holy bible and for me it leaves nothing out that I can't get the answer to when I see Jesus.
blazingthru
Well-Known Member
yes the very first sacrifice of a innocent animal the sacrifice for Adams and Eve's sin. the wages of sin is death and so death begin, starting with the animal and the plants and the trees and all things begin to die. I can't imagine how they must have felt to kill an animal that they loved for what they did.
My daughter is studying Evolution its actually funny to me. Has anyone see anything grow from an explotion? I have only seen a mess.
SND411
A True Soldier Never Dies
That's what I always thought. Couldn't God like create a tree that is "thousands of years old" in a day?
SND411
A True Soldier Never Dies
I believe other books can provided historical information about events long ago. But I do not believe that they provide the essential messages for Salvation
jerseygurl
Not a new member
dicapr
Well-Known Member
I don't see why God would creat something old-what would be the purpose. However, I do believe that the earth may be older than creationist believe. Nowhere in the bible did it say that Eve was created on Friday and ate from the tree on Sunday. Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands of years before sinning.
rafikichick92
Well-Known Member
If the Bible says "God created the heaven and the earth", then the earth is part of the creation and by definition not old, right?
I too was educated with curriculum meant for Christian schools (though I was homeschooled) and was also taught evolution in AP Biology. I believe I'm familiar with the explanation to which you are alluding. But I'd like to point out that science cannot prove anything, something I've learned as a science major. If you go back and look at the process of doing an experiement, you can only confirm a suspicion/hypothesis, but not prove it. You can do the experiment over a million times, but you have not proved anything. You've only really confirmed it. Science does not yield facts. So the theory of evolution (which is only a theory, not a fact and can neither be proven nor confirmed, as you said) does not really give credence to creation, not does it need to. The Bible is not a science book, but whenever it talks about science (or anything, for that matter) it is 100% correct. It's nice to have scientific "backup", and having can edify our faith and help us defend it to others, but if you believe in the accuracy of the Bible, it's definitely not necessary.
It doesn't give a specific timeline, but nonetheless, I don't think this is a logical line of reasoning because of Genesis 5:5 which says, "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." From this I'd say it's safe to conclude that there weren't 1000s of years because Adam and Eve's creation and the fall.
HTH everyone!
DarlingNikki
Well-Known Member
I haven't read through the entire thread, so this may have already been mentioned....before The Fall death was not intended for man. I don't believe animals were included in that deal.
Also, I would like to point out that the Bible does somewhat support the claim of evolution:
As it would appear, God did not create everything directly but instructed "the earth to bring forth".
I agree with the one poster who pointed out that the Bible was not meant to be a science book.
Last edited:
dicapr
Well-Known Member
If the Bible says "God created the heaven and the earth", then the earth is part of the creation and by definition not old, right?
I too was educated with curriculum meant for Christian schools (though I was homeschooled) and was also taught evolution in AP Biology. I believe I'm familiar with the explanation to which you are alluding. But I'd like to point out that science cannot prove anything, something I've learned as a science major. If you go back and look at the process of doing an experiement, you can only confirm a suspicion/hypothesis, but not prove it. You can do the experiment over a million times, but you have not proved anything. You've only really confirmed it. Science does not yield facts. So the theory of evolution (which is only a theory, not a fact and can neither be proven nor confirmed, as you said) does not really give credence to creation, not does it need to. The Bible is not a science book, but whenever it talks about science (or anything, for that matter) it is 100% correct. It's nice to have scientific "backup", and having can edify our faith and help us defend it to others, but if you believe in the accuracy of the Bible, it's definitely not necessary.
It doesn't give a specific timeline, but nonetheless, I don't think this is a logical line of reasoning because of Genesis 5:5 which says, "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." From this I'd say it's safe to conclude that there weren't 1000s of years because Adam and Eve's creation and the fall.
HTH everyone!
My understanding is that time didn't start until after the fall. Also there is an idea that there is no one who lived to 1000 because we die in that same day-1 day being 1000 years. I think it is quite possible that plenty of time passed befor the fall. There is no need to record Adam and Eve lived in bliss for 1000000000 years.
rafikichick92
Well-Known Member
Dicapr--may I ask why you think time didn't start until after the fall? I've never heard of that before ...
Since everyone is going around quoting this "1000 years is 1 days" verse, I thought I'd look it up and see what it had to say in context.
It's 2 Peter 3:8 and it says, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." This cross-references to Psalm 90:4 which says "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."
What this says to me is that it's saying 1000 years is like a day to the Lord. And since the Bible is written to us, the people, God would want to talk to us in people years, or in our context of time, not His. And our context of time would definitely be years, not days, since we seem to think the earth has existed for x amount of years not days.
This, combined with Genesis 5:5 which says that Adam lived 930 years (and he did begin living before the fall) makes me hold to my original position that the earth is not millions of years old.
Since everyone is going around quoting this "1000 years is 1 days" verse, I thought I'd look it up and see what it had to say in context.
It's 2 Peter 3:8 and it says, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." This cross-references to Psalm 90:4 which says "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."
What this says to me is that it's saying 1000 years is like a day to the Lord. And since the Bible is written to us, the people, God would want to talk to us in people years, or in our context of time, not His. And our context of time would definitely be years, not days, since we seem to think the earth has existed for x amount of years not days.
This, combined with Genesis 5:5 which says that Adam lived 930 years (and he did begin living before the fall) makes me hold to my original position that the earth is not millions of years old.
rafikichick92
Well-Known Member
How do the earth "bringing forth" support evolution directly or indirectly?
If you look at the rest of the surrounding verses, this "bringing forth" happened within that day of creation. If you're assuming literal days here (and I think it's logical, because how else are you going to explain "the evening and the morning [making] the third day?) that doesn't leave much of a window for evolution as it's normaly defined to occur.
DarlingNikki
Well-Known Member
I stated that it "somewhat" supports the idea of evolution. I never said it supported evolution as it's normally defined. Unfortunately the Bible does not go in depth about the amount of time it took for the earth to "bring forth", so it really is hard to say one way or the other.
discobiscuits
New Member
no commentrafikichick92
Well-Known Member
Alrighty then ...
rafikichick92
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. I apologize for misrepresenting your statement. I believe a case can be made for the earth doing the "bringing forth" fruit, grass, and what have you in 24 hours. After all, Genesis 1:11-13 tell us this happened on the third day, which means in 24 hours like I said before.
DarlingNikki
Well-Known Member
Where in the Bible does it state that one day equated to "24 hours" back then?
discobiscuits
New Member
Nikki. I've restrained myself from commenting on one of her above posts where it appears she misunderstood and misquoted me.
In this post I'm going to attempt to get some understanding. I think (hope) that when she says "day" she means that which is considered a 24-hour period.
Scripture states: "And the evening and the morning were the _____ day." However, to a Hebrew mind sundown to sundown is a "day"/24-hour period. Scripture says the evening and the morning. Amplified version reads: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." That does not seem like 24-hours to me.
Like I said, for the sake of discussion and understanding let's stipulate that the evening/morning reference equates to 24hours. Cool?
ETA: God didn't separate day/night until v14 which was day 4. Maybe v14 is where the 24-hour day was effective: "v14And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs and tokens [of God's provident care], and [to mark] seasons, days, and years,"....v19 "9And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."
Last edited:
rafikichick92
Well-Known Member
I am trying not to misrepresent anybody. If I have done so, show me where and I will apologize as demonstrated above. It's as simple as that. There is no need for people to feel they have to "restrain themselves".
rafikichick92
Well-Known Member
Nikki. I've restrained myself from commenting on one of her above posts where it appears she misunderstood and misquoted me.
In this post I'm going to attempt to get some understanding. I think (hope) that when she says "day" she means that which is considered a 24-hour period.
Scripture states: "And the evening and the morning were the _____ day." However, to a Hebrew mind sundown to sundown is a "day"/24-hour period. Scripture says the evening and the morning. Amplified version reads: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." That does not seem like 24-hours to me.
Like I said, for the sake of discussion and understanding let's stipulate that the evening/morning reference equates to 24hours. Cool?
ETA: God didn't separate day/night until v14 which was day 4. Maybe v14 is where the 24-hour day was effective: "v14And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs and tokens [of God's provident care], and [to mark] seasons, days, and years,"....v19 "9And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."
Yes, that is exactly what "she" is saying.
Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1.2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Can we really put a time on this beginning? I don't think so because it's not a part of the six days of creation.
You said : God created the heaven and the earth, then the earth is part of the creation and by definition not old, right?
Can I say : God created the human, then the human is part of the creation and by definition not old, and by definition a baby, right?
Wrong : God created the human, a man, not a baby. Even if you think that the earth, as a planet, is a part of the creation (that is not specified in the Bible), you can not say that God created a young earth.
Similar threads
