A created-with-backstory argument for creationism?

[To The Cliffs!]

Could an argument for creationism be made as such. First, I accept that all scientific evidence points to the earth being millions of years old, that humans evolved from other species, and that there is no particular scientific validity to theories such as intelligent design. Second, I accept that God created all of this "as is" about 6,000 years ago. In other words, God created the world with a "backstory" and this is what scientists are uncovering.

It seems like a much simpler argument than trying to contest against science on its own grounds.

many problems with this:
1) the bible doesn't state creation was created with an engrained physical "back-story"...so the mere idea of holding a religious belief in a physical back-story is non-scriptural and is made up out of wholeclothe.

Not at all. There are hundreds of years of scientific evidence, radiocarbon dating, etc. for the back-story. It's as far from being made-up as any interpretation of Biblical creation can be.

I meant you can't take something not in scripture (regardless if it is the scientific record) and teach it as religious dogma.  So this "theory" has no place in the church.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but I haven't seen what other definitions are used throughout the Bible for the word "day." Why would the word 'day' even be used if it is supposed to signify something else, like a "period"?

Yes, the bible uses other defintions for the word "day" other than a 24 hour period.  Example:  "Now is the day of salvation" (2Cor 6:2)

---

Good point, God created the sun and moon on the fourth day. So prior to then, it is not clear the length of day and night. But still, it would seem the most straightforward reading is that beginning on the fourth day, day and night can be defined as we define them today.

without explicitly stating so, an author is not going to switch definitions of the word "day" midway through the context and then switch again to have "day" mean eternity for the 7th day.  The only way to make the definition of the word "day" consistent within the Creation account is to have it mean an unspecified period of time.

[Beet]

Could an argument for creationism be made as such. First, I accept that all scientific evidence points to the earth being millions of years old, that humans evolved from other species, and that there is no particular scientific validity to theories such as intelligent design. Second, I accept that God created all of this "as is" about 6,000 years ago. In other words, God created the world with a "backstory" and this is what scientists are uncovering.

It seems like a much simpler argument than trying to contest against science on its own grounds.

many problems with this:
1) the bible doesn't state creation was created with an engrained physical "back-story"...so the mere idea of holding a religious belief in a physical back-story is non-scriptural and is made up out of wholeclothe.

Not at all. There are hundreds of years of scientific evidence, radiocarbon dating, etc. for the back-story. It's as far from being made-up as any interpretation of Biblical creation can be.

I meant you can't take something not in scripture (regardless if it is the scientific record) and teach it as religious dogma.  So this "theory" has no place in the church.

1. Who are you to say what "has a place in the church"? Are you the arbiter for all Christianity?
2. Most of the writings of theologians are not in the scripture, but are combinations of scripture and other sources, which is precisely what this is.
3. I am not trying to teach it as "religious dogma" but simply what makes the most sense based on certain assumptions.

The rest of your comment I won't respond to, except that Genesis does explicitly change the interpretation of "day" right in the creation story. When the sun and moon were created, they were created to govern the day and the night. Although I will admit that there are reasons to suggest a nonliteral reading- for instance, the creation of man and woman appears to happen twice.

[To The Cliffs!]

1. Who are you to say what "has a place in the church"? Are you the arbiter for all Christianity?

So, you are saying it is ok for a church to impose religious beliefs on its Christian members living today, beliefs that were not imposed on Christians of previous generations...as if the requirments of salvation through Christ can change from day to day?!

And if it is divisive and not salvational topic, then why waste time teaching it?

--

2. Most of the writings of theologians are not in the scripture, but are combinations of scripture and other sources, which is precisely what this is.

and that is exactly why most theologians are full of it - they're too busy trying to fomulate things that only cause division.

---

3. I am not trying to teach it as "religious dogma" but simply what makes the most sense based on certain assumptions.

but those certain assumptions don't even make sense within scripture itself - if you insist that a day be 24 hours, then you've got a big problem with the 7th day of the creation account because it is an eternal rest - it didn't have an evening

[John Dibble]

1. Who are you to say what "has a place in the church"? Are you the arbiter for all Christianity?

He's jmfcst if you haven't figured it out yet, Beet. So the answer to the question is yes, though he'll never admit it openly.