Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#166977 - 04/17/08 06:41 PM Re: Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and Theo... [Re: David Koot]
Vera Online   content


Registered: 05/19/07
Posts: 130
Originally Posted By: David Koot
Originally Posted By: Vera
If you have to read Genesis 1 and 2 literally, you have to read the entire Bible literally.

Correct, unless a passage states that it is a 'parable,' for example, or some other intended application. Do you see a problem with reading the entire Bible in such a light?

The short answer to your question is yes.

The longer answer is not only too long for this format but is still being formed, and I may very well blog it shortly.

In a roundabout way, however, I can tell you the reason for the short answer.

Do Bible writers consistently and explicitly signal the type of writing they're about to do? If not, should Bible readers, using a variety of methods, use their best judgment to make that determination? Are Bible readers who hold to sola scriptura already doing that in spite of their best efforts?

Originally Posted By: Shane
There is nothing in Genesis that indicates it is not to be read literally. In fact, the evidence is quite the contrary. The evidence indicates that the prophets, apostles and Christ read Genesis literally.


Here, permit me to share a quote from Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology and Biblical Interpretation:

Quote:
In preparing for a debate with a young-earth creationist, he [Stephen J. Godfrey, paleontologist and co-author of the book] decided—after several years of avoiding the Genesis creation account because of painful experiences associated with it—to reacquaint himself with it by reading it through many times. In so doing, he made a startling discovery. He realized to that point he had not been able to make sense of what was written because he had automatically but subconsciously been interpreting the text based on a 21st-century cosmological understanding. His reading was suffering from the proverbial "paradigm effect."

Therefore, in rereading the creation account, he made a conscious effort to forget what he knew about the structure of our solar system and the universe beyond.... The result of this experience was a radical new approach for what this account actually says.

pages 177-178

Which might be an interesting place to start if you're looking for a different understanding of Genesis.

It also underlines the fact that sola scriptura notwithstanding, we all bring our worldviews to our reading of the Bible.
_________________________
So love is greater than knowledge; how could I have forgotten? Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm | Wishing Doesn't Make It So

Top
#167000 - 04/17/08 09:38 PM Re: Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and Theo... [Re: Shane]
melvin mccarty Online   content


Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 617
Loc: B,C.
Problem is that chapter one and chapter two do not agree in a literal reading. We have to start explaining right away to make the first and second chapters agree.

mel

Top
#167073 - 04/18/08 01:20 AM Re: Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and Theo... [Re: melvin mccarty]
Shane Offline
Administrator of Foro Adventista

Registered: 02/02/02
Posts: 16941
Loc: Rio Grande Valley, Texas
The Bible only contradicts itself when one assumes each and every word was inspired by God. The message is inspired but the words which were chosen to express the message were chosen by erring and sinful men.

The only words written by God Himself were the Ten Commandments and MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. We find God's creation account in the Fourth Commandment which clears up any misunderstanding some may have about the creation week recorded in Genesis.
_________________________
I reserve the humble right to be wrong.

Link > Shane's Page - update in progress

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2


Moderator:  Bravus, Bravus 
Our Store


SEARCH OUR SITE

Custom Search
30 days FREE

This full membership income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
Shout Box

The Chat Room

Come Chat with others,
open 24/7

Who's Online
91 registered (Adamant, aldona, Bearamie, Beryl, bkopplin, Bravus, Bruce_G, Bruno, bygjymbo, carolaa, carole1012, CoAspen, Contented, Curly, DanC, darlene, delta, Denise, dgrimm60, Dottie, Doug, fccool, fun2believe, Gerry Cabalo, Gladussee, guibox, james423, Jerry D Thomas, John317, kayyak, Kevin H, Kountzer, Lauralea, lazarus, LifeHiscost, Lineman, Liz, LLBeck, Loren Fenton, LynnDel, Mark Aurelius, melvin mccarty, mikeyswen79, Morning Glory, Nan, Neil D, Nightingale, Norman, olger, patty, pkrause, puddles, Raphael, Redwood, RMiller, Robert, Sapphire, SarahAnne, SherryLee, SMAN, Tallmark, Taylor, veggiesmile, Vera, vern, 26 invisible), 535 Guests and 248 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Featured Member
Registered: 08/31/08
Posts: 243
Top Posters (30 Days)
Redwood 784
John317 720
Shane 431
Neil D 371
Bravus 288
Robert 286
carolaa 280
fccool 219
BobRyan 188
rush4hire 181
Stan Jensen 165
Taylor 137
Amelia 124
olger 120
Gail 109
pkrause 95
Nan 94
Lineman 81
Liz 77
B Humble 73
Top Posters
Amelia 18424
Shane 16941
Robert 15377
Gail 13579
Neil D 13172
John317 10243
Redwood 8964
Gerry Cabalo 7413
Naomi 7196
Gregory Matthews 7111
Bravus 7061
Nan 6021
Shirley 5292
ChildofChrist 5048
cricket 4889
bevin 4699
LifeHiscost 4152
Stan Jensen 3911
D. Allan 3883
dgrimm60 3593
Newest Members
SarahAnne, kayyak, veggiesmile, parsongarlic, babydeed
2963 Registered Users