You are jumping the gun here, -57, which isn't exactly your fault, as I did not spell things out enough. So let me explain further about Augustine. His argument was essentially that you could not take Genesis literally, because God does not work through corporeal movements in time. God created the entire universe all at once, poof, in an instant, no piddling around for six days. Why, then, does the Bible say six days? Our feeble intellects cannot even begin to conceive of the instantaneous creation of the whole universe. Hence, explained creation in terms wee feeble temporal creatures can understand. Like Augustine, Calvin came along and introduced the doctrine of accommodation, a basic fundamental in the Protestant understanding of Bible. Calvin said that our intellects are so week, due to the Fall, that God has to talk "baby talk" ( his actual term)to us. So, in his commentary on Genesis, he stressed that God is not here to teach us astronomy. Hence, the flat earth, etc., are not to be taken literally, but as a childlike metaphor or figure of speech. So he saw the geophysical of the Bible as analogous to the way we use the story of the stork to explain to children where babies come from.
The reason why I and other Christians do not take Genesis literally is more than the fact it clashes with evolution, which is no problem, at least for me, given the doctrine of accommodation. My POV is that Genesis is not n account of creation; it is actually providing two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and women together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then Eve. I realize it is common to find self-styled apologists online who claim it's a no brainer to resolve these contradiction. However, carefully their approach simple does not work. Why?
Careful linguistic study of the texts shows two different authors, writing in tow different literary styles, which can be dated to very different times in Israeli history. Note that Gen. 2 was written before Gen. 1.
Some apologist's use the ever-popular pluperfect theory to explain away the apparent contradiction. Accordingly, Gen. 2has been mistranslated, never mind the fact it took real experts to translate it. If the translator's would have been on the ball, they would have translated everything in the pluperfect tense. That would resolve the contradiction, as then everything in 2 could be referred back into Gen. 1 So the line should read," so God HAD created the animals." Looks like a simple solid solution. Many unsuspectmg Christians are drawn it. Only problem is, their is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
There is the ever-popular two-creation theory, which comes in different variations. I'll just address one here, a real old-timer and traditional one. During the Middle ages, Christians and also Jews sought to sew the accounts into one, by arguing we are actually dealing with two separate creations here. Gen. 1 is referring to the cretin of the entire world, while Gen. 2 is speaking about a wholly creation that took place later, and is confined solely to events just in the Garden of Eden. This does appear to be a no-brainer and quick way to resolve the contradiction. it was popular during the Middle Ages and in many circles today. But there is a problem here. It's very difficult to account for al, the key personnel in the story, and to do so, leads to some absurd conclusions. t there is one slight problem here. Enter Lilith, Adam's first wife. You see, if the two accounts are two separate ones, then we have to account for the women mentioned in Gen. 1. We also have to account for the man mentioned in one, but nobody was particularly passed by that and ignored it. So we have two women to account for, as I said. And the slick way they did this was simply to argue that Adam had two separate wives. As I said, enter Lilith. She is the mystery woman in Gen. 1. OK, but what's the slick way to work in Eve? Simple. Lilith liked to ride n top of Adam during sex. Adam didn't like it and god didn't either. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least managed to let Adam be on top of her. Lilith ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrifying children. Hence, cribs often had "God save us from Lilith" written on them.
I also could address several other major pseudo-solutions, but will stop for npw.
Bottom line: As a Protestant, I feel; it is my right to doubt the geophysics of the bible, especially the Genesis account. And if you wish to win me over, you can just go ahead and tackle the burden of offering a solid, rational rebuttal to the case I made above.
The reason why I and other Christians do not take Genesis literally is more than the fact it clashes with evolution, which is no problem, at least for me, given the doctrine of accommodation. My POV is that Genesis is not n account of creation; it is actually providing two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and women together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then Eve. I realize it is common to find self-styled apologists online who claim it's a no brainer to resolve these contradiction. However, carefully their approach simple does not work. Why?
Careful linguistic study of the texts shows two different authors, writing in tow different literary styles, which can be dated to very different times in Israeli history. Note that Gen. 2 was written before Gen. 1.
Some apologist's use the ever-popular pluperfect theory to explain away the apparent contradiction. Accordingly, Gen. 2has been mistranslated, never mind the fact it took real experts to translate it. If the translator's would have been on the ball, they would have translated everything in the pluperfect tense. That would resolve the contradiction, as then everything in 2 could be referred back into Gen. 1 So the line should read," so God HAD created the animals." Looks like a simple solid solution. Many unsuspectmg Christians are drawn it. Only problem is, their is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
There is the ever-popular two-creation theory, which comes in different variations. I'll just address one here, a real old-timer and traditional one. During the Middle ages, Christians and also Jews sought to sew the accounts into one, by arguing we are actually dealing with two separate creations here. Gen. 1 is referring to the cretin of the entire world, while Gen. 2 is speaking about a wholly creation that took place later, and is confined solely to events just in the Garden of Eden. This does appear to be a no-brainer and quick way to resolve the contradiction. it was popular during the Middle Ages and in many circles today. But there is a problem here. It's very difficult to account for al, the key personnel in the story, and to do so, leads to some absurd conclusions. t there is one slight problem here. Enter Lilith, Adam's first wife. You see, if the two accounts are two separate ones, then we have to account for the women mentioned in Gen. 1. We also have to account for the man mentioned in one, but nobody was particularly passed by that and ignored it. So we have two women to account for, as I said. And the slick way they did this was simply to argue that Adam had two separate wives. As I said, enter Lilith. She is the mystery woman in Gen. 1. OK, but what's the slick way to work in Eve? Simple. Lilith liked to ride n top of Adam during sex. Adam didn't like it and god didn't either. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least managed to let Adam be on top of her. Lilith ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrifying children. Hence, cribs often had "God save us from Lilith" written on them.
I also could address several other major pseudo-solutions, but will stop for npw.
Bottom line: As a Protestant, I feel; it is my right to doubt the geophysics of the bible, especially the Genesis account. And if you wish to win me over, you can just go ahead and tackle the burden of offering a solid, rational rebuttal to the case I made above.
Upvote
0
