Originally posted by Truth Hunter
As I understand the reading of Genesis 1, the Bible establishes a frame of reference for the six days in Genesis 1:2 "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Thus everything that occurred was from the point of view of the surface of the waters (what is your view on this, lucaspa?). If so, then the "creation" of the sun on the 4th day does not conflict since this occurs by the transition of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent. So light came before the 4th day, but the sun and moon were not distinguishable until the 4th day.
There goes your literal reading of Genesis! You are no more literal than the most liberal Christian. The passage says nothing about "point of view" but simply describes the condition of the earth. Genesis 1:16 says "So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day adn the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars. 17 He placed the lights in the sky to shine on the earth, to rule over the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness."
So, we have the sun, moon, stars made on the 4th day. Of course, there is the problem that light had already been separated from darkness, so the exact function of these to do that seems that God has Alzheimer's. But that's another problem of literalism; the damage it does to God's character.
As for the whales, the model I established in the first post assumes that God created without the use of macroevolution.
You originally wanted to reconcile Genesis with science, remember? That means keeping both. So now when one contradicts the other, we find out that this is not what you are doing at all. You have already decided which is wrong. Assumptions are countered by data. The data is clear that whales evolved from land animals. And that data can have been put there only by God, right? If God created, where else did it come from?
Again, the earth was created on the first day, along with the sun, moon and stars
Not according to Genesis 1:16.
That makes sense. I didn't make myself very clear, and I see what you mean by a less literalistic view of the Bible. When Luke says "all the world was taxed," it was a figure of speech.
How do you know it was a figure of speech? What's in the words themselves to tell you? You know they are a figure of speech because the extrabiblical evidence tells you so. Now, Genesis 6:17 says "all the earth". How do you know that wasn't a figure of speech just like Luke?
When I meant I take the Bible literally, that means I would take that phrase literally,
I know that, and I gave you a phrase. I agree that we know Luke meant "all the Roman world", but I don't think Luke meant that. I think he meant "all the world", but his knowledge was restricted so that the Roman world was all the world to him. Similarly, the Tigris-Euphrates Valley was all the world to the inhabitants of the time. So yes, their world was flooded. But not the entire world that we know.
No, you're right. The essence of the Bible is not in the details, but the theological ideas. But to pick and choose what's true and what's not from the Bible isn't fair, is it?
Why not? You do it anyway. Look through the later Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus and tell me how many of those rules and laws you consider "true" and follow.
I think Didsakmenos pointed this out: Christianity is not a dead religion. It is a living religion relating what Christians think God wants of them in the world. As your knowledge changes, so should your ideas about what God is and what He wants. The "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" God of the OT is replaced by the "turn the other cheek", always loving God of the NT.
How can we confirm that the theology is true without confirmation that the archaeology, history, etc. is true?
Let's do this the other way. We have the ancient Greek religion, and the stories of a war with Troy. All thought to be myth until Schleimann actually found Troy. Then archeologists found Mycenae, the Minoan palace on Crete, etc. Do these archeological findings make Athena, Zeus, and the rest real? That is the corollary to your statement.
There are a few events in the Bible that must be historically true for Judeo-Christianity to survive. IMO, the Exodus is one and the Resurrection is the other. Yes, without these being real Judeo-Christianity probably won't survive. Of course, without those it shouldn't and a new version of deity is needed. However, just because two events are essential does not mean that all of them are essential. I don't see any major theological damage if Genesis 2 is an archtypical story and the Flood was only local, not global. In fact, a global Flood has some severe theological problems. How can the non-Hebrew peoples be condemned for wickedness when they had never heard of Yahweh or the standards of conduct it expected?
I've never heard of the Genesis as a refutation for the Babylonians, sounds interesting.
See Genesis by Nahum Sarna
This is just a related comment, but a lot of the early church members believed in an old earth, and that was without being "biased" by evidence for the Big Bang and the old age of the earth. Their simple interpretation of the Genesis 1 text led them to believe that the earth was old. They include: Philo, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, and others. Some viewed the six days as figurative, others as longer periods, or thousand-year periods.
That's fine. You asked what was the problem of an Old Earth but still a literal Genesis. I pointed out the logical problems within the text of a literal Genesis as well as contradictions with the extrabiblical evidence.
