A New Interpretation of Genesis

SkyWriting · Feb 27, 2016

In situ said:
This is not the tread to discuss this but i fell I need to make a short remark on this opinion.Your assertion is obviously a false statement. Not only for the obvious fact that the laws of physics does not see a difference in what direction time runs, but for a range of other reasons as well, which I wont go into.
Worth to mention is that your claim is part of a "thinking toolkit", such as the Wedge Strategy, which purpose is to undermine the trust in science:

There is no concept called "Scientific History" are similar phrase used.
The reason being that it would be an Oxymoron. So you can blame
society for not creating language to cover what you imagine to be true.
But "Scientific History" does not exist. What you will find is many people
dancing around the issue but never claiming that we can scientifically
see into the past. Because it's not possible. Just test my comments
against any version of the scientific method and show at what step
I am wrong for analysis of past events.

SkyWriting · Feb 27, 2016

essentialsaltes said:
It's clear you've come up with a way to ease your cognitive dissonance, but I really think you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater here. We might as well give up on court trials and forensic science if 'the past is always a matter of faith'.

An Inferential Test for Expert Testimony
One can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.

Download Forensic Inference Emails Part 1 (PDF)

Download Forensic Inference Emails Part 2 (PDF)

stevevw · Feb 27, 2016

Practical-Christianity said:
Nothing is wrong with the hundreds of years we already have. I think God spoke to our forefathers using the knowledge they had at the time. We are really doing the same thing our forefathers did. We are taking the knowledge we have now - both scientific and archaeological - and interpreting Genesis as best we can to determine what God is trying to tell us.
-Stephen

I think we have to view the type of language used in the bible and especially in the time of when the old testament was written as how we view any writings of that time. people seen things differently without the awareness of modern times. So there were misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge. People may have believed the entire world was around where they lived and as far as the eye could see because thats all they knew.

I think even if we think the writer may have known something scientific about how everything was created and try to make out there is a scientific basis I dont think God injected some scientific knowledge into them. They were just writing down a revelation that had come to them which was more to do with a spiritual or divine meaning than anythings else. There may be some scientific basis we can draw from Genesis but this is very loose and is not a detailed account of how everything was created. So we have to take this into consideration in trying to interpret what they were meaning. I think the important thing is to not read to much into things from any particular point of view.

Norbert L · Feb 27, 2016

Practical-Christianity said:
I struggled with reconciling the science of creation/evolution with Genesis for a long time.

I ended up doing a lot of research and found that most Biblical scholars interpret Genesis differently than the majority of pastors and church-goers.

This interpretation resolved this whole creation/evolution debate for me.

I'm writing about this "polemic" interpretation if you want to follow along with me:

If you have big doubts about faith, I'm hopeful this will get rid of a big area for you like it has for me.

-Stephen

As Dr. John Lennox points out in his book, Seven Days That Divide the World, the writing of Genesis 1 is a bit more sophisticated than most people think it is.

-57 · Feb 27, 2016

Practical-Christianity said:
I struggled with reconciling the science of creation/evolution with Genesis for a long time.

I ended up doing a lot of research and found that most Biblical scholars interpret Genesis differently than the majority of pastors and church-goers.

This interpretation resolved this whole creation/evolution debate for me.

I'm writing about this "polemic" interpretation if you want to follow along with me:

If you have big doubts about faith, I'm hopeful this will get rid of a big area for you like it has for me.

-Stephen

Well, I went to your link and read this....

I don’t know what it was. Maybe it was biology class or moving away from the Christian group I grew up with. I’m not sure. But I started having questions pop up in my mind. Questions like:

If Adam and Eve really were the first two humans, did their children have to “procreate?”
What’s the deal with dinosaurs if the earth is only 6,000 years old?

What's the deal with finding soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bones if the dino's died out 65+ MY's ago? How does soft tissue survive for that amount of time?

stevevw · Feb 27, 2016

Practical-Christianity said:
I struggled with reconciling the science of creation/evolution with Genesis for a long time.

I ended up doing a lot of research and found that most Biblical scholars interpret Genesis differently than the majority of pastors and church-goers.

This interpretation resolved this whole creation/evolution debate for me.

I'm writing about this "polemic" interpretation if you want to follow along with me:

If you have big doubts about faith, I'm hopeful this will get rid of a big area for you like it has for me.

-Stephen

Your journey seems similar to mine. I look forward to part 2.

stevevw · Feb 27, 2016

Norbert L said:
As Dr. John Lennox points out in his book, Seven Days That Divide the World, the writing of Genesis 1 is a bit more sophisticated than most people think it is.

I like Professor lennox and he explains things very simply.

-57 · Feb 27, 2016

Norbert L said:
As Dr. John Lennox points out in his book, Seven Days That Divide the World, the writing of Genesis 1 is a bit more sophisticated than most people think it is.

It sounds like Lennox was saying God created in 24 hour periods.....but, sat back and waited for a while before creating the next day in a 24 hours time span....then sat back and once again waited as the years rolled by then in a 24 hour period of time once again created the next day.

Did I get that right?

CarlaB · Feb 27, 2016

Practical-Christianity said:
Seeing as your foundation is atheism, of course this doesn’t make sense to you.

What puzzles me is why it makes sense to you.

If I didn’t believe in blenders and you started talking about what all blenders can do, I would think you are crazy too.

Blenders are real things Gods are not.

For people of faith, we read the Bible or are just going through normal everyday life when we have ideas, images, or thoughts pop into our minds. We choose to believe that God uses these ideas, images, or thoughts to speak to us.

Whatever floats your boat.

God isn’t “speaking” to us in the audible sense. In the same way, God “spoke” to our forefathers.

That's the question I asked but you didn't answer.

I hope this helps.

Of course it doesn't how could it when you have told me nothing?

-57 · Feb 27, 2016

CarlaB said:
What puzzles me is why it makes sense to you.Blenders are real things Gods are not.

Believe it or not the atheist actually got that right. There are no Gods. There is only God.

CarlaB · Feb 27, 2016

-57 said:
Believe it or not the atheist actually got that right. There are no Gods. There is only God.

Is that because all the other Gods are man made or is it because everyone worships the same God only in different ways?

-57 · Feb 27, 2016

CarlaB said:
Is that because all the other Gods are man made or is it because everyone worships the same God only in different ways?

True. All gods except God is man made. Even the concept there is no God is man made.

CarlaB · Feb 27, 2016

-57 said:
True. All gods except God is man made. Even the concept there is no God is man made.

How lucky were you to be born with the only God that's not man made? do you feel sorry for all those people who through no fault of their own were led down the wrong path?

razzelflabben · Feb 27, 2016

In situ said:
No you can't, well you can, but then you made an erroneous judgment.

....are you referring to not knowing if God is the author or are you referring to knowing the intent, cause my comment taken in context was referring to intent not whether or not God was real, but then again, context is vital to communication and is often overlooked by people trying to make a point.

-57 · Feb 27, 2016

CarlaB said:
How lucky were you to be born with the only God that's not man made? do you feel sorry for all those people who through no fault of their own were led down the wrong path?

No fault of their own?
What's your excuse? You deny Gods existence. A simple study of "all" tells us there has to be an eternal being that always existed or else nothing would exist today....considering from nothing you can't self create something.

razzelflabben · Feb 27, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Blind faith is just that, MisterAl, totally blind, and so precisely what leads to ignorance, fanaticism, superstition, and undue fear. Such a view has been prompted in certain Christian circles down through the years and is precisely why the church got itself into real trouble. Faith is always a leap or jump, but it is not a jump where you are blind, in the dark, and can't see. It is always a jump with some real degree of knowledge, with some reality basis to it. I don't know what church you attend, but I do know that I and many other Christians would be very uncomfortable attending a church where you had to cut your head off every time you entered.

not to mention that the bible itself tells us to test to know...it also tells us to be ready or know why we believe, neither of which sounds "blind" to me.

razzelflabben · Feb 27, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Qu9ite right, Razzle, the world of biblical scholarship is not at all like the world of laity. There is a huge town-gown chasm that can be difficult to breach. The world of scholarship is light years from the world of the laity. The goals are different, the priorities are different, and the conclusions are very different. Many laity go to Scripture with teh attitude that it is inerrant, that everything happened just the way Scripture says it did. Biblical studies works quit4e differently. You go to Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is inerrant, maybe not. Let's test out the inerrancy theory and see. This is also true of many other assumptions that the laity, or even ministers, make about Scripture. Biblical studies is reality testing, check-it-out time. So the conclusions can be very different and at times appear very threatening to laity. Education alienates. Occupational hazard. For example, I hold that Genesis actually consists of two contradictory creation accounts from two different time periods.

Pretty much exactly the point I was making...except for the part about 2 different time periods in that I have no clue what you are referring to to know if that holds up to common literary rules....you know, like I said we should approach scripture rather than the bias you talk about above.

Norbert L · Feb 27, 2016

-57 said:
It sounds like Lennox was saying God created in 24 hour periods.....but, sat back and waited for a while before creating the next day in a 24 hours time span....then sat back and once again waited as the years rolled by then in a 24 hour period of time once again created the next day.

Did I get that right?

Yes and no, he meshes together the theological consensus about a day being a 24 hr period of time (evening and morning) with the seventh day which is has no such out line and constraint. In my hearing he leaves it as something that may or may not necessarily allow for a 24 hr. period of time. It brings to my mind something Jesus said about the seventh day sabbath in John 5:17 and how it may or may not figure into the seventh day of Genesis.

CarlaB · Feb 27, 2016

-57 said:
No fault of their own?
What's your excuse? You deny Gods existence.

I'm an atheist but what about all the people who were raised to be Muslim or Hindu? millions of them have never heard of Jesus Christ? just as you have never heard of some of their Gods.

A simple study of "all" tells us there has to be an eternal being that always existed or else nothing would exist today....considering from nothing you can't self create something.

If that's the case where did your God come from and how do you think he created everything?
According to your bible your God was there before anything existed, he then created everything from nothing. When you analyse the myth it falls apart.

CarlaB · Feb 27, 2016

Double post sorry.......

A New Interpretation of Genesis

The Librarian

The Librarian

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency