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.
Every piece of red ribbon symbolizing the blood of Christ. Every piece of wood symbolizing the cross. Every drop of water symbolizing baptism. Have you never read ECF exegesis?Which doesn't answer my question. What excesses?
Very colorful. (yes, as a matter of fact. Read them, taken courses in them when I was an undergraduate at a catholic university) But what has that to do with a literal Genesis? Even Protestants indulge in typology, surely?Every piece of red ribbon symbolizing the blood of Christ. Every piece of wood symbolizing the cross. Every drop of water symbolizing baptism. Have you never read ECF exegesis?
Very colorful. (yes, as a matter of fact. Read them, taken courses in them when I was an undergraduate at a catholic university) But what has that to do with a literal Genesis? Even Protestants indulge in typology, surely?
So do I, yet I don't assume that the author's intent in this case was merely to provide us with a bald factual statement of creation events. Why do you?Yes typology can certainly be warranted but there are big differences between typology and allegory. Typological interpretation includes historical-grammatical interpretation.
I am not aware of any outlandish allegorical interpretations of Genesis 1-2. I am speaking more generally of the principle of historical-grammatical interpretation. I try to interpret every text according to the author’s intention. So I interpret Genesis using the same principles.
So do I, yet I don't assume that the author's intent in this case was merely to provide us with a bald factual statement of creation events. Why do you?
The circular argument "solution" works out like this --
God creates man on day 6 in Genesis 1. Atheist sees that the man is an adult and so "extrapolates back" with some level of inference based on the circular assumption that god-does-not-exist - and concludes that the man was born 25 years earlier - but the mother of that person has not yet been "discovered" and no other humans exist on planet earth at this point.
Then claims that the inference alone disproves the statement that God created Adam yesterday.
Not the cadence structure of Gen 1? Not Hebrew poetry by any means, but some have suggested hymnody. Why is such a notion an existential threat to Christianity? What about Gen 2? What about the puns and other wordplay? The highly anthropomorphized non-human characters? Magic trees? Just at first glance, it looks to me like a written version of an etiology originally crafted to survive in oral tradition. OK, you don't believe it and that's fine with me, as we both derive the same doctrine from the text. But why is my view a threat to yours? We've gone 'round and 'round about this, but I still don't get why you see a literal Genesis as a hill to die on.The genre of Genesis seems to be historical narrative. Reading chapters 1 and 2 accordingly is the most straight forward reading. Genesis 1 and 2, for example, lacks all the hallmarks of Hebrew song and poetry. It lacks the hallmarks of apocalyptic literature. I don’t see anything from the text itself that would invite me to read it differently than as historical narrative.
Not the cadence structure of Gen 1? Not Hebrew poetry by any means, but some have suggested hymnody. Why is such a notion an existential threat to Christianity? What about Gen 2? What about the puns and other wordplay? The highly anthropomorphized non-human characters? Magic trees? Just at first glance, it looks to me like a written version of an etiology originally crafted to survive in oral tradition. OK, you don't believe it and that's fine with me, as we both derive the same doctrine from the text. But why is my view a threat to yours? We've gone 'round and 'round about this, but I still don't get why you see a literal Genesis as a hill to die on.
Well, it is the topic of the thread. Certainly, what @Speedwell posted is reflective a quite a few YECs.It’s not an existential threat to Christianity and I don’t see it as a hill to die on. I’m not sure where you got that from.
Well, it is the topic of the thread. Certainly, what @Speedwell posted is reflective a quite a few YECs.
Personally, whether the scripture was meant to be taken allegorically or literally, I think is kind of irrelevant.
Even if the original authors intended genesis to be taken literally, at the end of the day they lived some 2,000 years ago and really would never be able to comprehend the depth of creation. Be them inspired by God or not. And so there is no reason to treat their works as objective literal truth, even if the authors meant it to be such.
And with that, along with contradictions between a literal interpretation of scripture and objective conclusions about creation itself discovered through the scientific method, is enough for me to conclude that belief in YECism just isn't justified.
Did God also create star clusters on day 4 and give them different populations of main-sequence stars, red giant or supergiant stars, and white dwarfs,
"And, if it challenges the truth of a physical and literal resurrection, then let it be what it is."
I think if Christians really can't reject young earth creationism, without simultaneously losing faith in all of Christianity, then I think that the Christian faith would then be doomed. .
Whoever they may be. For my part I am entirely in agreement with those scholars. I don't see any difficulty at all.Part I.
Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.
Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."
my comment: And that poses a problem for Christians who need the bible to "say something else"
All Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired and authoritative word of God. Your point?Part II. Many Christians even today think the Bible is true.
Because it's a plausible, well-evidenced explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. There is no reason not to accept it provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted.It occurs to me that a similar question could be posed to the evolutionist. What’s the point of believing in evolutionary history? It’s not really necessary in order to practice science or medicine.
It occurs to me that a similar question could be posed to the evolutionist. What’s the point of believing in evolutionary history? It’s not really necessary in order to practice science or medicine.
There are a number of genres that aren't poetic, symbolic, or apocalyptic, and that are straightforward narrative, e.g. legend or satire. I think the existence of two completely different creation stories shows that the final editor was not trying to create a simple history, but instead was trying to pass on all of the traditions handed down to him.The genre of Genesis seems to be historical narrative. Reading chapters 1 and 2 accordingly is the most straight forward reading. Genesis 1 and 2, for example, lacks all the hallmarks of Hebrew song and poetry. It lacks the hallmarks of apocalyptic literature. I don’t see anything from the text itself that would invite me to read it differently than as historical narrative.
It occurs to me that a similar question could be posed to the evolutionist. What’s the point of believing in evolutionary history? It’s not really necessary in order to practice science or medicine.
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?