Is the creation story in Geneses a literal or figurative story with many deep and important messages?
Literal story with many deep and important messages....Hey, btw, they've found Noahs ark.
Both; you know, the one that offers a brief overview and the other that goes into more detail than the other.Which one, the one in Chapter 1, or in Chapter 2?
You mean the one that lays things out a certain way and the one that appears to contradict it in places?Both; you know, the one that offers a brief overview and the other that goes into more detail than the other.
It takes a certain reading to come to that conclusion. The idea is identical in both; one elaborates the other and the two are incredibly simple to harmonize. The first story is not a detailed account, but a brief overview of the creation story while the second elaborates key segments of the first. Remember; these were both supposedly written by the same person. I somehow doubt he/she was that dense as to just 'forget' about the first account when writing the second.You mean the one that lays things out a certain way and the one that appears to contradict it in places?
P.S. The key word here is appears, of course. I'm not pretending that I know their are irreconciable differences in the two accounts, but they there are a few points in them that appear difficult explain.
So you're saying the first one is like a synopsis, or executive summary.Both; you know, the one that offers a brief overview and the other that goes into more detail than the other.
So you're saying that looking at a piece of text that contains summary information that leads to a more detailed account of a thing, one would become insane? Or do you mean specifically with this account?So you're saying the first one is like a synopsis, or executive summary.
If one were to think seriously, for any significant period of time, about the literal-or-not status of a synopsis, they would likely lose all faith in their heretofore pat assumptions about what is literal and what is figurative. They might also need counseling.
I don't understand this distinction between faith and site.
What does 'site' refer to?
I said making a decision about whether the synopsis, as compared with the actual account, was literal or not (assuming of course that the actual account is literal) could very likely lead to insanity. It would least lead one to question the concreteness of their assumptions about what is an is not "literal."So you're saying that looking at a piece of text that contains summary information that leads to a more detailed account of a thing, one would become insane? Or do you mean specifically with this account?
The form of the writing takes a certain style, in the same sense that the genealogies in the gospels take a certain form - they all report different things, but they also fit perfectly the form that genealogies took in Hebrew culture. The same is true of Genesis. This book was not written in English, to an American audience, but many fail to take that into consideration when reading it.I said making a decision about whether the synopsis, as compared with the actual account, was literal or not (assuming of course that the actual account is literal) could very likely lead to insanity. It would least lead one to question the concreteness of their assumptions about what is an is not "literal."
To just scratch the surface of the issue, let me pose two fairly simple questions: (1) How do know that the text is not literally reporting that certain things happened twice, where they are reported both in a synopsis and the body. (2) If the body contains a perfect literal account, how does the synopsis, which uses different words, relate to the perfect account. Is it imcomplete? Imperfect? Incorrect? A lie?
Ahhh.... no worries.First it refer to me being in a hurry and misspelling it. Sorry, I meant sight.I was referring to the verses that tell how Jesus told the disciples that because they see Him they believe, yet we believe by faith because we have not seen Him.
Thanks!!!Ahhh.... no worries.
In that case, no, it's not at odds with faith as we would not literally see Jesus before us, nor would it be conducive to faith - in other words, we wouldn't believe in Jesus any more or less because of Noah, but we would believe in Genesis more as a result of a finding such as the ark.