Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Except that your adding words does change it, it gives a very different meaning to the verse. Sometimes people add words to a verse to draw out a shade of meaning that is actually there in the words, like the amplified bible does. But you are adding meanings that aren't there. That is changing scripture rather than interpreting it.
You may be right from your point of view. If I were you, I probably would think the same.
However, I have reason for the way I look at it, even I may "enrich" the meaning of the verses (beyond the meaning of the original text) based on other (scientific) considerations.
My current interpretation of Gen 1 is that the earth (third planet of the sun) was NOT made on Day 1 neither on Day 2. It is not hard to accept this idea even the words EARTH, WATER and AIR are used in the verses.
Now, the crucial point is whether was the earth made on Day 3 or on Day 4? If we argued based on the concept that plants (in any form) MUST live on the planet earth, then the choice should be Day 3 (also because the description of land and sea). But if we argued based on the origin of the whole solar system (nebula, star, planet etc), then it seems should be on Day 4. A common attack (or doubt) on Genesis creation is attracted by the first choice: the planet earth was made on Day 3. This not only raise problems like the survival of plants, but also raise problems on the origin of the planet earth. Both threads of problem are hard to answer based on science.
But, if we think the creation of the planet earth is on Day 4, then most of the problems mentioned above could be solved by giving a little enrichment (not violation) to the meaning of original words.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
__________________
Господи помилуй нас.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
You may be right from your point of view. If I were you, I probably would think the same.
You are saying TEs have more respect for the actual meaning of the text than literalist YECs
However, I have reason for the way I look at it, even I may "enrich" the meaning of the verses (beyond the meaning of the original text) based on other (scientific) considerations.
I can see how a scientific understanding might add to our understanding of the text, but that is adding to, without taking away, the original meaning of the text. An understanding of how perception developin the first year of life adds to our appreciation of Jesus healing the man born blind. Changing the meaning of 'born blind' to something completely different, 'suffered psychosomatic trauma from seeing his baby born' or was blind drunk on his birthday' does not enrich the text. I fail to see how a description of sprouting vegetation and trees heavy with fruit, is enriched by changing its meaning into seeds stuck in dead ground.
My current interpretation of Gen 1 is that the earth (third planet of the sun) was NOT made on Day 1 neither on Day 2. It is not hard to accept this idea even the words EARTH, WATER and AIR are used in the verses.
Just to point out, there is no word for air in Genesis, 'fowl of the air' in the AV is literally 'birds of the heavens'.
Now, the crucial point is whether was the earth made on Day 3 or on Day 4? If we argued based on the concept that plants (in any form) MUST live on the planet earth, then the choice should be Day 3 (also because the description of land and sea). But if we argued based on the origin of the whole solar system (nebula, star, planet etc), then it seems should be on Day 4. A common attack (or doubt) on Genesis creation is attracted by the first choice: the planet earth was made on Day 3. This not only raise problems like the survival of plants, but also raise problems on the origin of the planet earth. Both threads of problem are hard to answer based on science.
But, if we think the creation of the planet earth is on Day 4, then most of the problems mentioned above could be solved by giving a little enrichment (not violation) to the meaning of original words.
The problem here is the description is not of the earth being created on day 3, but the earth appearing when the waters are gathered into one place. Gen 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." The land that God called earth, was already there beneath the waters, waiting to be revealed and dry out. Its actual creation must have been earlier as Melethiel point out. If you put the creation of the earth into day 4, isn’t that an even bigger problem for the plants which were created on day three. It is odd enough to only have light without a sun, but plants created in space without a planet is even stranger.
But it does answer one very puzzling question about the nature of the universe.
I fail to see how a description of sprouting vegetation and trees heavy with fruit, is enriched by changing its meaning into seeds stuck in dead ground.
Because it could then be applied to a much wider environment, which is not restricted to the current earth conditions. Besides, seeds and plants can be correlated one by one, so nothing of the creation is lost.
If you put the creation of the earth into day 4, isn’t that an even bigger problem for the plants which were created on day three. It is odd enough to only have light without a sun, but plants created in space without a planet is even stranger.
I just love to hear what you said. That is, in fact, my main point of this thread. The "seeds" of plants do not have to be on earth only, which was not formed on Day 3. They could be all over the place in "the universe". For example, in planets of other stars, in nebulae, in space dust, etc. etc. The key idea is wherever the "seeds" could survive, they developed into plants. In most places of the universe, they could not survive. Then they died and became the so-called "organic material".
A scientific fact we know a little bit today is that various types of organic material are nearly everywhere in our solar system (and in remote star systems ?). This makes some scientists believe that life is everywhere in the universe and the life on earth was originally brought to earth by what? Yes, by comets, because they are loaded with organic material.
So, if God creates plants on Day 3, they did not have to be on earth, but at everywhere in the universe. Of course, when God creates the earth on Day 4, plants would also be on earth, as well as on Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Titan, etc. etc. While all plants on other planets/moons died due to unfavorable environment, those on earth survived and developed due to rain. An implication here is that (water) rain is an unique feature of the earth, but not one on any other planets/moons of the solar system.
And YECs yell at TEs for ignoring the "plain meaning of Scripture"...
__________________
Господи помилуй нас.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
Because it could then be applied to a much wider environment, which is not restricted to the current earth conditions. Besides, seeds and plants can be correlated one by one, so nothing of the creation is lost.
They correlate as you put it, but they are not the same. They differ in form which is what the account describes, and differ in chronology. Seeds come in a different stage in the life cycle to mature plants. Genesis describes the stage in the life cycle just before your interpretation, fully mature plants bearing fruit and seeds, rather than seeds in the ground. Your interpretation of Genesis abandons both the literal meaning of the text and the chronology inherent in the description.
Why when everything else in the text is up for grabs in your interpretation, do you cling on to six literal days? There is no basis in scripture for changing full grown trees into seeds, but there is a very strong basis for reading the days figuratively. Moses tells us himself in Psalm 90 where he talks about God's creation and goes on to tell us God's days are not always seen literally.
I just love to hear what you said. That is, in fact, my main point of this thread. The "seeds" of plants do not have to be on earth only, which was not formed on Day 3. They could be all over the place in "the universe". For example, in planets of other stars, in nebulae, in space dust, etc. etc. The key idea is wherever the "seeds" could survive, they developed into plants. In most places of the universe, they could not survive. Then they died and became the so-called "organic material".
A scientific fact we know a little bit today is that various types of organic material are nearly everywhere in our solar system (and in remote star systems ?). This makes some scientists believe that life is everywhere in the universe and the life on earth was originally brought to earth by what? Yes, by comets, because they are loaded with organic material.
So, if God creates plants on Day 3, they did not have to be on earth, but at everywhere in the universe. Of course, when God creates the earth on Day 4, plants would also be on earth, as well as on Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Titan, etc. etc. While all plants on other planets/moons died due to unfavorable environment, those on earth survived and developed due to rain. An implication here is that (water) rain is an unique feature of the earth, but not one on any other planets/moons of the solar system.
Panspermia?
YEC Panspermia?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
