#166977 - 04/17/08 06:41 PM
Re: Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and Theo...
[Re: David Koot]
|
Registered: 05/19/07
Posts: 130
|
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? 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: 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]
|
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
|
|
|
|
|

SEARCH OUR SITE
|
|
This full membership income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
|
|
|
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),
533
Guests and
253
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Registered: 12/29/01
Posts: 2585
|
|
|