lismore
Maranatha
- Oct 28, 2004
- 20,684
- 4,358
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
AudioArtist said:I'm probably quite liberal in some ways. I, like you, don't believe in a literal interpretation of genesis...I just don't think it makes any scientific sense and it doesn't match the data we have found out about the history of the universe today. .
What data have we found out about the universe today?
A couple of areas I studied at Uni- fluvial geomorphology (river sediments) and archaeology- there is data in these that makes anything other than a literal Genesis impossible. There has been lots of work done in this field and Hutton's ideas are now untenable for a variety of reasons.
Recent archaeological discoveries in the Genealogies of the ancient peoples- especially from Ur and Sumer have undermined a lot of assertions about the book of Genesis being copied from babylonian or Egyptian sources..........its now suggested that the book of genesis is the oldest in the world. Work in this field has returned to the point of view it had in the 1920s, when the then inspector general of antiquities for Egypt could claim in his book on Pharoah Ahkenaten that the Egyptians and ancient Babylonians were copying some of their ideas from the book of Genesis.
We are faced with the alarming prospect that the book of genesis is very old and there is no reason to suspect the authors were not talking literally.
From the bible several of the patriarchs lives ran concurrently. Did you know Noah was alive during Abrahams young years? they could have talked. Methusaleh's life stretched 969 years- Adam's was long as well. Adam-Methusaleh-Noah- Abraham. How long is this to hand down? Perhaps Discoveries suggest the creation narrative in its present from was known to Abraham......he could have talked with someone who knew Methusaleh, who himself could have talked with Adam.
Plus, if there is no literal fall, there is no literal redemption. No first adam, no last adam.
Upvote
0