Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In contrast, Christian faith, is not faith in faith. It is faith in God's written record that He has provided to explain the origin of the universe and of mankind (the Bible)....
That's fine, and you're entitled to this line of questioning. My point, however, is that if the writers of Genesis weren't interesting in the same "ultimate" thing that you're "after", then you're probably not going to find the answers you are looking for from them. So until you can establish that their assumptions about history and their motivations in writing Genesis correspond directly with your assumptions about the criteria for determining whether the writing relates in a modernist's "historical" way to the events that transpired, you may have a fruitless search ahead of you.
Again, it depends on "how it's written." Until you can establish the motivations and intentions behind how it was written, you'll never get to the phenomenological conclusion you're after. After all, if this is mythos, the event (from a modernist POV) may have not "happened", but to the writers of the Scriptures, it may have "happened". Ultimately, you will need to reconcile yourself to the fact that the ancient writers of the Scriptures don't think about the world, history, or even God in the same way that you do.
I would argue that you are making a terrible mistake in making this argument. Not only is this argument without historical precedent, it is also entirely incapable of substantiation.
That's your opinion, of course. Personally, I find what scientists tell us about the history of the earth to be entirely in keeping with who God is.
There is nothing "wrong" or "broken" with the cessation of biological processes within a finite universe. Death is a requisite for life, as the very biological makeup of who we are as embodied persons is predicated upon cells dying, new cells replacing them, multiplying, dying, and on and on.
The "brokeness" in the world, therefore, is not the physical phenomenon which occur, but rather humanity's broken relationship toward God, creation, and self. We see within creation violence and pain and fear because we have detached ourselves from the life God in our rebellion. Therefore, even in the goodness of God's creation, we find horror and terror because these perfectly natural occurrences remind us of our alienation from the life of God and the doom which awaits us as we drift farther and farther into death and unbecoming.
False premise. First of all, you have yet to define how one is to actually determine whether "these events" did or didn't happen. Second, by making this claim, you have ultimately declared that the modernist/scientific viewpoint is the ultimate arbiter of truth, that even the Scriptures (which you claim "must be correct" in its relation to science) are subject to them.
I could not disagree more. The Scriptures are a part of the cornerstone of Christian faith and life, not because they are scientifically and historically accurate (however these are defined...), but because they are within the historical tradition and practice of the Church, all the way to the very beginning. Christians should not need to defend the Scriptures against scientific/historical methodology, for the Scriptures are not cut from the same cloth as that to which these methods would be applied.
However, when naive Christians feel threatened by these methodologies and go out of their way to illegitimately subject the Scriptures to this scrutiny, it creates nothing but harm. Yes, it may be done with good intentions; but it is not done in a thoughtful way and betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Scriptures and the place which they occupy within the historical tradition and practice of the Christian church.
The verse you are talking about, the lion and the lamb, are from Isaiah not the NT, though still scripture. I don't see how this has anything to do with our interpretation of Genesis since they are prophetic passages describing the future not a description of the past or Eden. Interestingly, these descriptions of lion, wolf, ox and lamb is in a section that describe the Messiah growing out of a tree stump. You are trying to use a metaphorical passage to argue that Genesis must be literal.
Amen! Faith is only as effective in whom it is placed.
Yes, but the quote you "amen'ed" said that Christian faith is in the Scriptures, which is false. Christian faith is in the person of Christ. To say that Christian faith is faith in the Scriptures is idolatry.
Okay with all that said, can you tell me the original writers view? I get the feeling that ultimately, it doesn't matter in the long run because we can obviously get meaning out of Genesis in spite of it being literal or not. I can see from some of the things you say below, which I'll respond to, I get the general feeling that you're saying the people just got the message of Genesis. That being seperated from God is not a good thing.
However, I argue if Adam and Eve didn't literally exist, and Genesis is as much mythically true as every other ANE myth, where does that leave Christianity? This would mean Christianity is built upon something that is as much true as every other religion in the world. That makes Christianity just as true as any other religion in the world.
So again it doesn't matter what my moderist view is, I acknowledge very much there's a message in Genesis, whether it literally happened or not. Yet it's very important to know if it literally happened. If it didn't, Christianity is based on something that is as reliable as every other creation myth in the world.
You mentioned some posts back, that Genesis should be understood as a myth. Reasoning that Genesis was similar to all the ANE myths around that time. If we are to argue that Genesis shouldn't be seen in a modernist view in terms of history, then it's safe to say Genesis is nothing more than another creation story just like all the others in that time.
Scholars even argue that the authors of Genesis took parts of the story from other creation stories. (Such as the Epic of Gilgamesh) So why should I believe Genesis is different from other stories? Why should I believe God was involved in these scriptures? The only way to set it apart from other myths, is to prove it historically. That Adam and Eve existed, and they disobeyed God.
So God created death and suffering, all before there was a "disconnection" between God and man? How do you explain that disconnection anyway, if Adam and Eve didn't exist?
So again, how do you explain the relationship between man and God became broken?
And the results of that disconnection would be even harder to explain if the history scientists present is true.
I gather you are saying there wasn't any real physical result to our broken relationship with God, but only spiritual. That's all fine and good, however if that is the case, if our relationship with God was never broken, we would still see tragedy in this world. So even with God involved, people would still die horrific deaths, be abused in every way imaginable, so on and so forth. That just doesn't make sense.
Now if you're saying those tragedies didn't happen when we had relationship with God, you are semi arguing for why Genesis must be literal in it's history, from a modern view point. So you can't have millions of years of death and common descent, and God at the same time. Only one can be true.
All we should care about is if what we believe is literal.
I very well know that science is limited to our observation. That's why even though it disagrees with Genesis being historical, I believe there is an observation that we can't see. Christianity is built on a literal Genesis.
If Genesis isn't literal and is as good as any other creation myth, who's to say Christianity isn't literal as well? Who's to say Jesus is who He said He was, and also remember that the only information as to what Jesus did and said are in Paul's letters and the Gospels. Information that was written 20+ years after Jesus was on the earth. (And scholars believe the Gospels were written after 70 AD/CE. I disagree) So what's written in the OT is key in determining if Jesus is truly who it is said of Him. That's why I say if Genesis is not literal, Christianity probably isn't literal either.
If God desired peace, it's not a stretch to say He also created the world with peace originally. Paul said that death was the final enemy to be put under Jesus feet. God sees death as an enemy. Yet if God created us to die, which is what we have to believe if common descent is true, that is utterly contradictory. You can't have common descent history and God be true at the same time.
This is simply ascribing motivations to God for creating the world the way you think he created it. It might have some validity (as far as we can understand the thoughts of God), if God actually created the world that way. But if God didn't created the world that way, then your attempt at understanding a mistaken view of creation has no bearing on the question at all. It is simply what you think you would have done if you were God. It doesn't say anything about what God actually did or why.If God desired peace, it's not a stretch to say He also created the world with peace originally.
Again you are taking a verse that describes present situation, death being God's enemy, and a future event, this enemy being destroyed. It does not describe the creation in the past. If you read down the chapter, you will see that the problem with death is something that only came when mankind sinned.Paul said that death was the final enemy to be put under Jesus feet. God sees death as an enemy. Yet if God created us to die, which is what we have to believe if common descent is true, that is utterly contradictory. You can't have common descent history and God be true at the same time.
I don't accept the omphalos hypothesis. There's no question that God made things mature, but as far as it concern dating methods and distant star light, no. Of course my ideas are a little in depth. I'll post them all shortly in this thread and in the other one I made, so we can go into deeper discussion.
As for the other things you mentioned, I'm holding out for now. .....So there's more research to be done, with the knowledge we have today.
I hear you, but I still want to look into these things for myself,
of course while reviewing what scientists say on the matter.
Yet the biggest thing is if these events didn't happen, Christianity falls apart altogether. The Bible is not a science book, but it must be correct on it's points concerning origins and history.
I think a mistake is made by scientists looking for evidence of a world wide flood when they should be looking for evidence of a world wide flood aftermath
Yer sure. If that is how you want to believe. I'm sticking with the big flood ideaThe Colorado river running along the bottom of the Grand Canyon is the giveaway.
You are free to believe whatever you like, but your original point was about scientists looking for evidence for the flood. The evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by the Colorado river, and the scientists studying the canyon go with the evidence rather than wishful thinking.Yer sure. If that is how you want to believe. I'm sticking with the big flood idea
Actually I hear that scientist have given up on trying to maintain the myth that the little river caused the massive erosion and now think it may well have been a flood. Well what do you know A flood -who'd of thought itYou are free to believe whatever you like, but your original point was about scientists looking for evidence for the flood. The evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by the Colorado river, and the scientists studying the canyon go with the evidence rather than wishful thinking.
I think you made some very good points. If you ever watch the Matrix movie then you get the picture the "virtual world" was created by the codes outside of the "program". Genesis does mention God spoke the world into existence. The more we learn about our universe the more we learn we live in the universe of information. So much so we wouldn't know if we were hooked up to a computer as in Matrix or not. (the idea behind the movie)All we should care about is if what we believe is literal. I very well know that science is limited to our observation. That's why even though it disagrees with Genesis being historical, I believe there is an observation that we can't see. Christianity is built on a literal Genesis. If Genesis isn't literal and is as good as any other creation myth, who's to say Christianity isn't literal as well? Who's to say Jesus is who He said He was, and also remember that the only information as to what Jesus did and said are in Paul's letters and the Gospels. Information that was written 20+ years after Jesus was on the earth. (And scholars believe the Gospels were written after 70 AD/CE. I disagree) So what's written in the OT is key in determining if Jesus is truly who it is said of Him. That's why I say if Genesis is not literal, Christianity probably isn't literal either.
The theological explanation of humanity's alienation from God is certainly a part of the message, yes. But there's more going on, I think. If you examine the ANE literature of the same time period, you'll find a number of creation myths, flood stories, king's lists, etc., many which share very similar aspect and content with the narratives in Genesis. What is interesting about the creation myth in Genesis in particular, is the theological reinterpretation that is accomplished.
So if you look at it like this, the people of Israel would have been surrounded by nations that, like them, had common creation myths (and other narratives) that shaped their worldviews. Since oral histories/narratives would have been the primary means of communication of ideas, it's quite likely that the ancient Israelites would have been intimately familiar with the creation stories common to their day. So then, you can begin to see how incredibly important a reinterpretation and retelling of these shared creation stories would have been, but from the perspective of Yahweh, not the panetheon of gods of other peoples. You can begin to imagine how the theological truths that the people believed would have transformed these stories into the beautiful story of God's providential creation and care of the universe, and the special place which the Genesis account attributes to humanity in relationship to God.
From the modern mind's perspective, we get tripped up on the "happened-ness" of story, of history. We have a prejudice to historicity, thinking that the value and meaningfulness of a story is ultimately terminated in the "fact" of it. However, try to think of yourself in the shoes of the ancients. You are shaped and molded in your worldview by the stories that are told; these are literally how knowledge and experience and truth and faith and meaning are passed from generation to generation. In such an intimate relationship with story, is the "happened-ness" really the most important part? Or is your relationship to and place within that story more important? I would argue that for the people for whom Genesis was written, the latter is closer to the reality.
I would say it doesn't change Christianity whatsoever. There is nothing within the tenants of faith that somehow "require" (or even presume, for that matter) a particular philosophical interpretation of Genesis. Christianity is not "built upon" Genesis; the beautiful story of Genesis is certainly a part of Christianity, but I would argue that the historicity of it is not; and I would particularly reject the notion that the historicity of it is something that should even be a matter of debate.
I think you are making too much of the place of Genesis, as literature, within the grand arc of what-is Christianity. But even if Christianity is somehow "based" on Genesis, what are you going to do? As we've already discussed, there's no way that you can absolutely verify your quest either way. If you must have verification, I must sadly tell you that you have much frustration and disappointment ahead.
But don't you see the modernist prejudice in this conclusion? "Nothing more than another creation story"? Why does Genesis have to be historically verified in order to be "more" than "another story"? What is the deficiency in "story" that is fulfilled in historicity? You feel this way because you have been indoctrinated through modern philosophy to valuate "story" and "history" in such a bifurcated way. But can you explain why this evaluation is valid?
You realize, don't you, that you're setting up a false standard? You want Genesis to be of divine origin (and I'm not denying that it is, btw). But you propose to establish this "otherly-ness" on the basis of historical verification. However, historical verification can ONLY establish the facts of particular historical occurrences (and I use "facts" in the loosest way possible); historical verification will NEVER establish the divine origin which you suppose for Genesis, for historical investigation can only operate within the domain of that which is of the universe...e.g., not the supernatural.
So even if you somehow verify that Adam and Eve existed in the way that your philosophical prejudices demand that they existed, you will be 0% closer to establishing the claims about anything related to the supernatural origin of the Genesis account, the creation of the universe, etc.
Death is a requisite for life. Suffering is a subjective evaluation of sensory input, which I would argue is a result of humanity's alienation from God.
I explain the disconnection by looking at myself. I started off as a perfectly sweet and innocent child, and grew into a man full of pride and violence who lived at enmity with God and neighbor alike.
I don't agree. While death and decay would certainly continue to be a part of life, I don't think we would see them as tragedies. We evaluate the phenomenology of death as "tragedy" and "horror" and "suffering" because our relationship is broken with God. If we lived in union with God, seeing the world as God sees it, we would see the beauty of life and death as God does, and would accept with gladness and praise our place within it, knowing as God does that it is "good". However, because we have lost the knowledge of God and have been severed from the life of God, the natural course of the "good" world that God created becomes a curse to us, a constant reminder of our hastening rush toward death and unbecoming. Cut off from God, we experience suffering because the self-will within us bristles against the thought of, one the one hand, dependence upon the life of God and, on the other, the extinguishing of one's own life.
Why?
I'll point you back to my comments above. I think death is transformed into a curse by the rebellion of humanity. If such is the case (and I think there's a pretty compelling case to be made for this conclusion), there is no contradiction whatsoever.
This is simply ascribing motivations to God for creating the world the way you think he created it. It might have some validity (as far as we can understand the thoughts of God), if God actually created the world that way. But if God didn't created the world that way, then your attempt at understanding a mistaken view of creation has no bearing on the question at all. It is simply what you think you would have done if you were God. It doesn't say anything about what God actually did or why.
God's plan, from before the foundation of the world, was to bring peace and reconciliation through Christ's death on the cross. If Christ's death was God's plan before he created the world, I don't see the problem in God creating a world where this is possible.
Remember what Jesus said? John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. The world you would have created would have been peaceful, but without the possibility of this love.
Again you are taking a verse that describes present situation, death being God's enemy, and a future event, this enemy being destroyed. It does not describe the creation in the past. If you read down the chapter, you will see that the problem with death is something that only came when mankind sinned.
1Cor 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?"
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
Of course you believe death came after sin and as the result of sin, but the question we are looking at is whether there is a problem if death existed the fall. Death since the fall is a death with the sting of sin and is God's enemy. Since this death is spiritually very different from any death before the fall, there is no reason to think death before the fall, before sin, would have been God's enemy too.
(from post #24)
But that's the point - you don't seem to be aware of the huge amount of work (research) that has already been done to show whether or not these things* actually happened. It wasn't just 100 hours of work, nor just 100000 hours, but literally lifetimes of people, working until death or retirement on this stuff. Not just a few lifetimes of work either, but literally millions of lifetimes. In fact, it's hard to think of things that haven't already been researched.
*= a global flood, a 6 day creation 10K years ago, and the exodus
(post about the many dating methods)
Have you read Luke chapter 10 (the good samaritan)? Does it matter whether or not there actually was a samaritan who did exactly what the story says? Of course not. Note that Jesus never says "this is a story that may not have actually happened". No, he just tells the story so it can inform us of the message God is telling us. Whether or not it actually happened isn't relevant.
If the stories in Genesis, Exodus, etc didn't actually happen (another example is the sun standing still in Joshua, etc), then Christianity is fine - just as fine as it was after Jesus told the Good Samaritan story.
If that weren't the case, then Christianity would not exist - because mountains of evidence have already shown that the events above didn't actually happen. That's why it's important to look at things like genre.
In Jesus' name-
Papias
I think you made some very good points. If you ever watch the Matrix movie then you get the picture the "virtual world" was created by the codes outside of the "program". Genesis does mention God spoke the world into existence. The more we learn about our universe the more we learn we live in the universe of information. So much so we wouldn't know if we were hooked up to a computer as in Matrix or not. (the idea behind the movie)
If God did create the universe (spoke it into existence just as man type up his virtual worlds or writes a book) then it stands to reason those in the world will have very little access to that which the world was created by. In Matrix once he could "see" the code in the virtual world he became like a god. Jesus could easily change water into wine and walk on water just as man changing the code to his video game.
This is why I feel scientist can't come up with a theory of everything because there isn't one. You can take the blue pill which you think the natural world is all there is or the red pill to learn there is a greater reality than the physical which is required to understand origins.
I understand what you're saying, however there's more to the Genesis account than this. I believe if the origin of the Israelites was simply a people coming together from other nations, and they passed down oral traditions to ultimately becoming a nation, I would agree with your reasoning. However, if the origin of the Israelites is as explained in the Exodus (Remember from Abraham on, the Bible has the mention of certain sites as "being there until this day". So from Abraham on, the people very much see the events as literal history), there's reason to believe that Genesis is meant to be taken as history. That God created a world without death thousands of years ago, and Adam and Eve were the first humans. Why?
Simply put the story in Genesis wouldn't have descended from the spread of other creation myths, but from the detail that God gave to Moses. I'm not saying either that Moses wrote Genesis, but Genesis ultimately descend from the information Moses was given by God.
Also, if we are to say Genesis is written as a myth (meaning it doesn't require for it to be factually true)
and the NT Gospels to be written as history (requiring it to be factually true),
...then the NT definitely presents Genesis as factually true. Just from the line of descent in Jesus' geneaology. So right there, if Adam didn't exist factually, Jesus didn't exist factually either. And if Genesis didn't factually happen, there's no reason to be a Christian.
So with what I said above, it shows why Genesis must be factually true, in order for Christianity to be factually true.
I assume we both consider Jesus to have literally died for our sins thousands of years ago. In the same manner, Adam was a historical person who's actions brought death into the world.
I believe that is where you're wrong. Genesis can be verified, or proven completely false.
ven the creation part, I believe can be verified as well.
That evidence can be gathered that would conclude if God created the universe or not. This is done from combining the account with scientific inquiry. In Daniel it is written that knowledge would increase. With the introduction of scientific stuy, our knowledge increases everyday. With this knowledge, we can take a better look at what Genesis is saying, and finally prove it true or false. (From where I'm coming from with this. Science as we know it right now, does suggest Genesis is not factual. However, not yet. Genesis says more than the storybook picture most get from traditional thought)
It's valid because if it's not historical, Genesis truly is another creation story.
If it's not historical, why should we think it's from God?
Surely God could provide information about our origins.
If He can speak on future events, certainly He can speak on events already past.
This would officially be evidence that God is involved with this story.
I do have to be honest here, because the message of Genesis is truly unique to any other creation story. Genesis is the only story that says we are created in God's image. Every other culture would probably say that is straight up blasphemous. Also Genesis pretty much states God created ex-nihilo, He created from His own power and choice to create. I haven't come across other stories that suggests things like that. (Though there could be ones out there like that)
So the message is unique, but it has to be proven factually true or else Christianity is not factually true either.
I disagree. Remember that the world and universe God created, would have been supernatural in itself if you ask us. Think about it. There was no death, there was a different system of precipitation, and probably the knowledge of Adam and Eve was off the charts. Death affected creation, and so the processes changed. All we have to do is work backwards in a way, find details that didn't change so drastically from that time. One area is deep space. Another area might be on the deep ocean floor, where no sunlight reach that far. Then examine everything in between from there. If Genesis verified, it would verify the one who gave the inspiration for the account. It's the logical conclusion.
Death isn't a requisite for life, or else eternal life wouldn't make sense. The processes that go on now, is how life evolved after death came in.
Just so I understand where you're coming from, are you saying even if we never lost that connection to God, we would still have things like disease on the earth? That even if God was with us, people would still be born with deformities and have painful traits like sickle cell anemia, and would see those things as "very good"?
Because these things are factually linked to what we believe. If they are not factual, what we believe is not factual.
And again, just so we are on the same page, if our relationship with God was never broken, would we see aids and other immune system attacking diseases as a good thing?
You talking about the idea of [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hopi Lake flood? That certainly was a [/FONT]hypothesis[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] geologists explored[/FONT], but it didn't hold up. The mistake creationist make is is thinking any mention of flooding in geology must mean it was Noah's flood. If the Colorado was such a little river, why go to so much effort building the Hoover dam?Actually I hear that scientist have given up on trying to maintain the myth that the little river caused the massive erosion and now think it may well have been a flood. Well what do you know A flood -who'd of thought it
I believe people (Christians) had the wrong idea concerning what Genesis was saying. For one, Genesis is not a science book. Christian geologists and so forth in the 1800s, approached this thing that the Bible was dishing out science. And they looked to verify those points. Once they found those points weren't correct scientifically, they no longer examined the account as factual in any area thereafter. Yet I approach this thing from Genesis being historical and not scientific. It's hard to fully explain for now, .......
I have a new research technique concerning this. .....I'm not throwing out what they researched, I'm just interested in seeing if there is something more to know here. With Genesis being an origin account, there could be key pieces that we don't observe today that is throwing us off with our current understanding of history. So that's how I'm approaching this.
Originally Posted by Papias
Have you read Luke chapter 10 (the good samaritan)? Does it matter whether or not there actually was a samaritan who did exactly what the story says? Of course not. Note that Jesus never says "this is a story that may not have actually happened". No, he just tells the story so it can inform us of the message God is telling us. Whether or not it actually happened isn't relevant.
If the stories in Genesis, Exodus, etc didn't actually happen (another example is the sun standing still in Joshua, etc), then Christianity is fine - just as fine as it was after Jesus told the Good Samaritan story.
Like I mentioned in my posts above, the NT presents Genesis as historical.
Jesus' line of descent goes all the way back to Adam,
and there are mentions throughout Paul's letters and some of the others that when put together, presents Genesis as historical.
Yes, Christianity wouldn't exist or otherwise be true.
But again, you're importing categories onto the text, reflecting modern assumptions and prejudices about the valuation of "history". Saying that Genesis is mythological (or parts of it at least...more than likely, it was written over many years, with parts added for particular religio/political reasons) does not require us to go to the extreme that every word of it is fairytale like. The power of mythos is that, in many cases, it is rooted in something relevant to those hearing/reading it. So then, the categorization of the creation account as mythological does not necessarily require that the whole of Genesis (or all of Scripture, for that matter) be understood in precisely the same way.
This is the point of closely analyzing the genre of the text, in order to understand the sitz em laben which prompted its composition in the first place.
For the benefit of the doubt, let's grant this point. Why, then, would we see such striking similarity between the structure and content of the Genesis creation narrative and that of other ANE creation narratives, almost all (if not all) of which predate the date of writing of Genesis? If the information came from God, not from a shared oral history of the ancient peoples, how did the information communicated from God to Moses retroactively find its way into the creation narratives of the other cultures of the time?
That doesn't make any sense. If you understand the role of genealogies within the ancient world, it's very easy to reconcile the Adamic inclusion in Jesus' lineage without at the same time necessitating that Adam is a "historical" (in the modern sense) person.
Wait, why does Christianity have to be "factually" true? Christianity predates modern philosophy...why it is suddenly beholden to it?
How?
I disagree vehemently. God's creation of the universe is a miraculous, supernatural thing. If it could be verified on the basis of non-miraculous, non-supernatural investigation, the only thing that would be proven is that which is within the domain of the tools of investigation. That is, the only thing that scientific methodology can "prove" regarding the origin of the universe is that which belongs to the domain of the universe.
Therefore, since the universe did not have a material beginning, but was rather called into existence from the immaterial God of all, there exists absolutely no tools within human epistemology that could lead us to a demonstrable proof this.
And what's wrong with that? As I already discussed, this can be perfectly reconciled when one understands the place of creation stories within the ancient world, in addition to the rather clever and innovative transformations which were applied to the Genesis account.
Why should we think it's from God if it IS historical? Again, the prejudices of modern thought have created necessity where none actually exists.
And why is a creation myth not sufficient for this? Why is scientifically verifiable information the only valid form of divine communication? Based on this criteria, the only conclusion that one could consistently come to is a thorough-going materialism.
Maybe, but you'd never be able to validate the claim, given that the tools you are using can only speak to that which is finite and temporal.
You still haven't explained why Christianity has to be "factually" true. Why is the faith of the Christian beholden to the verification principles of modern philosophy?
Verifying Genesis (again, how do you verify something which is not in itself historical?) would do no such thing. Verifying every single word of Scripture on the basis of historical/rational criticism would lend precisely ZERO support for establishing the existence of God. All it would prove is that the Scriptures achieve the standard of verifiability applied to them by historical criticism, which is ultimately a circular, subjective standard anyway.
Eternal life, which is trans-physical/temporal, would likely existe according to different principles than those which exist in the universe we occupy. The fact remains that in order for you to have biological life, there has to be biological death; otherwise, your body would not function, your mind would not be active, etc.
Yes. As I said, the evaluation of these things as "bad" is because of our fundamental animosity toward and alienation from God. There is nothing "bad" in the natural biological processes that occur (diseases, natural disaster, etc.). We evaluate them as bad because they remind us of the everlasting consequences of being separated from God. If this separation did not exist, we would find peace and serenity in our place within the universe, vaporous and fleeting as it is.
Yes, I believe we would. We would live in the knowledge of God, seeing the beauty of creation and being content in our place within the good universe that God has created. Given that we are alienated from God, we spread the corruption of our hearts into the creation, seeing bad in that which God has declared good, making a curse of the beauty which God intended for us to enjoy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?