The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

depthdeception · #**111** 20th June 2005, 01:32 PM

One of the things that I have noticed is that there is a general misuse of the word "literal" in these discussions about the interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts.

For example, the closest "category" in which I would fit would probably be something like Theistic Evolution. However, I would concomitantly affirm a literal reading of Genesis.

My reasoning is that a literal reading of Genesis has very little to do with what the text says to someone in the post-modern (and post-pre-modern!) 21st century, but is rather wrapped up in what the intention of the author was in writing the document.

Therefore, if the author's intention is anything other than attempting to convery a scientifically verifiable explanation fo the mechanism of creation (which is absurd to a pre-scientific era), then it is entirely possible to embrace an evolutionary view of creation while still maintaining a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I know this is beyond the scope of this thread. So, if you are interested in pursuing this more, see this one which is more closely related. http://www.christianforums.com/t1724...f-genesis.html

gluadys · #**112** 20th June 2005, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by depthdeception

One of the things that I have noticed is that there is a general misuse of the word "literal" in these discussions about the interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts.

For example, the closest "category" in which I would fit would probably be something like Theistic Evolution. However, I would concomitantly affirm a literal reading of Genesis.

I agree. Often I see "literal" used as equivalent to "what the text most likely means to a 21st century reader who has not had the opportunity to study it in historical context." Often this is quite different from the intended meaning of the author and is not a literal meaning at all, but a figurative understanding that has been absorbed into popular culture within the last 300-500 years.

Sometimes "literal" is used simply to mean "true" or "real".

SuperNova · #**113** 27th June 2005, 10:55 PM

#3. Young Earth.

I'll cite these videos as a source of evidence for why I believe as I do. Plus I believe it fits the Bible the best

http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/

Astronomy and the Bible is a good one.

statrei · #**114** 28th June 2005, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Sojourner<><

I'm not sure that I see your point. If God made the stars also, then that's exactly what it means.

All you know is what is written in Genesis. We are already agreed that Genesis makes no mention of water having been created by Elohim. Does this mean, by your reckoning, that Elohim did not create the waters?

statrei · #**115** 28th June 2005, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Sojourner<><

I believe that Elohim created the waters as He created all things. If the waters which are referred to in Genesis are contained within the heavens, then Elohim created the waters since He created the heavens according to Genesis 1:1.

Now you are beginnig to shave the truth to fit your point. Gen. 1:1 says he created the heavens and the earth, not only the heavens. These flags are too big and too red for us to be missing them.

Sojourner<>< · #**116** 28th June 2005, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by statrei

Now you are beginnig to shave the truth to fit your point. Gen. 1:1 says he created the heavens and the earth, not only the heavens. These flags are too big and too red for us to be missing them.

How so?

Sojourner<>< · #**117** 28th June 2005, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by statrei

All you know is what is written in Genesis. We are already agreed that Genesis makes no mention of water having been created by Elohim. Does this mean, by your reckoning, that Elohim did not create the waters?

Absolutely not.

First of all I don't subscribe to the idea that we have to have a detailed description of the creation of every individual thing in order to assume that God created it. God created the Universe... that's a very broad category that most everything can fit into.

Second of all, if for some reason you want to focus on water, here's an interesting little tidbit. The word for "heaven" as used in Genesis 1:1 is "shamayim" and its meaning basically corresponds to all of space, which is a more modern concept. There may be a connection to two other hebrew root words: "sham" which means "there" and "mayim" which means "waters".

statrei · #**118** 28th June 2005, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Sojourner<><

Absolutely not.

First of all I don't subscribe to the idea that we have to have a detailed description of the creation of every individual thing in order to assume that God created it. God created the Universe... that's a very broad category that most everything can fit into.

Second of all, if for some reason you want to focus on water, here's an interesting little tidbit. The word for "heaven" as used in Genesis 1:1 is "shamayim" and its meaning basically corresponds to all of space, which is a more modern concept. There may be a connection to two other hebrew root words: "sham" which means "there" and "mayim" which means "waters".

We both agree that the universe was created, but you cannot now deny that Gen. 1 goes into a lot of detail about the creation yet leaves out details about what appears to be central. Do not ignore the authors deliberate structure. If the heavens were created in Gen 1:1, as you seem to suggest then what happened on the fourth day? You can't create then what has already been created, nor would you suggest that the stars are not a part of the heavens. I think the author is making a point and everyone is ignoring it.

Sojourner<>< · #**119** 28th June 2005, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by statrei

We both agree that the universe was created, but you cannot now deny that Gen. 1 goes into a lot of detail about the creation yet leaves out details about what appears to be central. Do not ignore the authors deliberate structure. If the heavens were created in Gen 1:1, as you seem to suggest then what happened on the fourth day? You can't create then what has already been created, nor would you suggest that the stars are not a part of the heavens. I think the author is making a point and everyone is ignoring it.

The fact that God created the Universe on the first day doesn't mean that He created everything on the first day. On the fourth day God created the sun, moon and stars. We know that these were not created with the rest of the Universe because He created them later.

statrei · #**120** 28th June 2005, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Sojourner<><

The fact that God created the Universe on the first day doesn't mean that He created everything on the first day. On the fourth day God created the sun, moon and stars. We know that these were not created with the rest of the Universe because He created them later.

That is flawed reasoning. You are limited by the fact that you wish to make the Bible a technical manual. Moses was writing an account with a specific purpose. He could have used much more direct language to state what you are inferring here. Of course, you have not accounted for water either. Let's be rational instead of being driven by our official beliefs. Beliefs are only working hypotheses.