Examining Genesis...

ToxicReboMan · #11 13th June 2009, 11:27 AM

"For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water." 2 Peter 3:5-6 nasb

Is Scripture wrong here?

Mallon · #12 13th June 2009, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan

"For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water." 2 Peter 3:5-6 nasb

Is Scripture wrong here?

In what sense? In the scientific sense? Certainly. But then again, the Bible wasn't written to address science. It was written to address our relationship with God and with one another. Thus, the message is true regardless of whether the ancient Hebrew cosmology in which it was delivered stands up to science or not.

Now let me try one on you:
" The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chron 16:30).

Do you believe that passage is true?

ToxicReboMan · #13 13th June 2009, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Mallon

Yes. Your question supposes that evolutionary creationists are the only ones who don't read Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. We aren't. NO Christian reads Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. So your question should be directed, not at evolutionary creationists specifically, but at Christians as a whole (including yourself!).
Where do you draw the line between scientific concordism and accommodationism in Genesis, ToxicReboMan? Many evolutionary creationists I know would argue that Genesis 1-11 should be understood in the context of an accommodationist framework, with history phased in throughout.

How does my question suppose that? My question is not only directed at TEs. It is an open question. I merely stated who are the prominent Christian proponents of such views, that being TEs. I'm not typing code.

Mallon · #14 13th June 2009, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan

How does my question suppose that? My question is not only directed at TEs. It is an open question. I merely stated who are the prominent Christian proponents of such views, that being TEs. I'm not typing code.

My apologies for misunderstanding you. Your OP sounds like it's directed at evolutionary creationists.
Just so you know, it isn't true that all evolutionary creationists allegorize Genesis. Most of us take it quite literally (perhaps more-so than YECs). We simply do not subscribe to the concordist approach. More here:

Untitled Document

ToxicReboMan · #15 13th June 2009, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Mallon

In what sense? In the scientific sense? Certainly. But then again, the Bible wasn't written to address science. It was written to address our relationship with God and with one another. Thus, the message is true regardless of whether the ancient Hebrew cosmology in which it was delivered stands up to science or not.

Now let me try one on you:
" The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chron 16:30).

Do you believe that passage is true?

Well, you choose not to trust Scripture when it clearly says that the earth was created out of water and by water. There is so much water in space. Remember water was separated to create the expansion of the universe. Is space unlimited? Who knows (hard to fathom), but according to the Bible at the "edges" of the universe you will hit water. How do scientist know that the universe isn't an expansion amidst great waters?

The Bible goes beyond genres. The Bible has a little something of the historical genre, poetical genre and even the scientific genre.

On that passage it is clear that no human can move earth. If earth is to be moved by someone, it would be done by God alone who established it. That is the message of that little text.

Mallon · #16 13th June 2009, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan

Well, you choose not to trust Scripture when it clearly says that the earth was created out of water and by water. There is so much water in space. Remember water was separated to create the expansion of the universe. Is space unlimited? Who knows (hard to fathom), but according to the Bible at the "edges" of the universe you will hit water. How do scientist know that the universe isn't an expansion amidst great waters?

The Bible goes beyond genres. The Bible has a little something of the historical genre, poetical genre and even the scientific genre.

On that passage it is clear that no human can move earth. If earth is to be moved by someone, it would be done by God alone who established it. That is the message of that little text.

Ahhh... now I see your tact. You want to give evolutionary creationists a hard time because we don't accept scientific concordism. We just went through the same thing with vossler and peace4ever. Check out our exchange in this thread and let me know if you can address the one point I made and repeated that vossler refused to engage:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7374858/

ToxicReboMan · #17 13th June 2009, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

Ahhh... now I see your tact. You want to give evolutionary creationists a hard time because we don't accept scientific concordism. We just went through the same thing with vossler and peace4ever. Check out our exchange in this thread and let me know if you can address the one point I made and repeated that vossler refused to engage:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7374858/

A hard time?

Wrong. I was just trying to pose a fair question which nobody has even taken the time to answer directly with any effort.

ToxicReboMan · #18 13th June 2009, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

My apologies for misunderstanding you. Your OP sounds like it's directed at evolutionary creationists.
Just so you know, it isn't true that all evolutionary creationists allegorize Genesis. Most of us take it quite literally (perhaps more-so than YECs). We simply do not subscribe to the concordist approach. More here:

Untitled Document

No biggie.

As for as your link. I'll take a look at it. But I can't promise you anything.

With everything that has as been said. I do believe all of this is only for curiosity's sake. I do not believe that anyone's perspective on the origin of earth and mankind has any significance on salvation. But I do think it is important not to peck away credibility from the Bible.

gluadys · #19 13th June 2009, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan

Care to elaborate?

First, I think what you mean by "literal" is really "historical" i.e. actual events which have particular space-time coordinates in our universe.

(One should separate the meaning of "literal" from "historical". There is a literal meaning to everything said or written, but not necessarily a reference to history. Most prose fiction, for example, can be read literally i.e. the common sense meaning of the text is the intended meaning--there is no intention that the story be an allegory. But there is no intention that it be history either.)

But one cannot divide scripture up in such a way that you can say: everything up to here is not history and everything after here is history. Non-history intrudes into history in the bible from Genesis to Revelation---all the way through.

And there are huge gray areas where it could be (at least in part) history, probably is (in part) history, but not verified by evidence as history.

Consider even such an important figure as Moses, for example. It is pretty hard to imagine the history of Israel without him. And I, for one, don't doubt that Moses existed. But we have no evidence apart from the biblical stories that there ever was such a person, and a fair bit of evidence that suggests the stories are not entirely historical. Probably we are on firm ground in holding that Moses was probably an actual historical person, but also on firm ground holding that most of the stories about him are in part or in whole legendary.

Mallon · #20 13th June 2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan

A hard time? Wrong. I was just trying to pose a fair question which nobody has even taken the time to answer directly with any effort.

Maybe there's no direct answer to your question. As gluadys and I have pointed out, you mischaracterized evolutionary creationism from the outset, so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. It's like asking, "Have you stopped beating you wife?" Regardless, I took a good crack at it.
Now how about you? Where do you draw the line between interpreting Genesis literally and allegorically? Do you subscribe to a literal firmament with literal floodgates? Was Day 7 a literal day? Was the snake a literal snake? Did God literally create birds from water as it says in Genesis 1, or did He literally create them from dirt as it says in Genesis 2? Perhaps you could help shed some light on these issues and set us all straight.