I'll submit a statement for your critique. I want to see what you guys think of it. That statement is:
Genesis 1 describes the creation of a universe that does not exist.
Genesis 1 describes the creation of a universe that does not exist.
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
I'd Like to See What You Think
- Thread starter MrSnow
- Start date
- Status
ExistencePrecedesEssence
Fools seem to ruin even the worst of things!
Do you have affirmations that qualify you to make such a statement in the first place?
Upvote
0
ExistencePrecedesEssence
Fools seem to ruin even the worst of things!
No I understand your question. Now I'm asking a question in retort asking what makes you think the way you do about Genesis 1.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
What I said in response is that I don't understand your question. What are you referring to by "affirmations" that would qualify me to make that statement?
I'm not sure what you mean. What time what?
Upvote
0
There are many "Gap Theory" variations that deal with God going along with a process, then scrapping it and starting over (to explain the long history of extinct species over billions of years) but I have never heard of one that applied to the entire universe.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,310
- 52,682
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yes and no --- the universe described in Genesis 1 is the same universe we currently live in, but it has changed drastically since the Fall in Genesis 3. It is nothing today like it used to be.
Upvote
0
That's not really what I meant. What I meant was that Genesis describes a very particular model of what the universe looks like: land on the bottom; water on top of that with some land sticking out; the sky, which contains the sun, moon and stars; a layer of water above that, which is our blue sky; and animals to live in the water, air, and on the land.
That simply isn't our universe. So with that said, Genesis 1 describes the creation of a universe that does not exist.
Upvote
0
BeforeTheFoundation
Regular Member
MrSnow said:
Ha ha. Yeah, last I checked our world doesn't have a canopy with water above it and if I go to the ends of the earth I won't find pillars holding said canopy up.
Upvote
0
But, that description happens to be very much what people in the ancient near east (ANE) thought the universe looked like. The original writer of Genesis, when describing the awesome and majestic concept of God being the creator of everything, used the understanding of what it all looked like that he was already familiar with. And, God allowed it to be written that way since the actual details about the nature of the universe were not, even in the least, what was important about the account. Further, even that original human author did not care so much about the scientific aspects, since it was not ultimately about that. There are many, much more important messages about God, His nature, His power and control, His relationship with Mankind, etc.
Some may say that God would not allow that to happen since it would cause confusion, and they try and force the text to somehow really reflect what the universe actually looks like, or say that it DID look like that, and then changed for some reason. But, really, God does not seem to mind at all allowing text to be written in a way that will cause confusion for many (thus the numerous denominations we have). Instead, I think it is incumbent upon us to recognize the appropriate genre of the writing and the culture in which it was written, and be focused on the message, not treating as some type of scientific account.
Some may say that God would not allow that to happen since it would cause confusion, and they try and force the text to somehow really reflect what the universe actually looks like, or say that it DID look like that, and then changed for some reason. But, really, God does not seem to mind at all allowing text to be written in a way that will cause confusion for many (thus the numerous denominations we have). Instead, I think it is incumbent upon us to recognize the appropriate genre of the writing and the culture in which it was written, and be focused on the message, not treating as some type of scientific account.
Upvote
0
... which is just baloney, of course. In a world where people 'knew' from every day observation that the earth was flat with a solid canopy stretched out over it, they would have immediately rejected any cosmology that contradicted what their eyes were prepared to see. It's that fallible, human element of the Bible -- that phenomenological perspective -- that gave it credibility among those early Hebrews.
Upvote
0
Exactly, even St. Augustine recognized that God used "accomodation" language in Genesis. He asserted the God allowed it to be written using a systematic six day process because people would have a hard time grasping the idea of God creating everything in an instant, and then letting it develop from there. He proposed the idea of God creating instantaneously, with "seminal seeds" of the whole of Creation, which would all come to be at their appropriate time. Sounds strangely like the "frontloading" concept many TE's suggest.
Upvote
0
Indeed. And accomodationalism was later echoed by scientists like Galileo and Kepler, too. I suspect this approach has much deeper roots than modern concordism.
For anyone interested in reading about the history of accomodationalist thought, there's a brief synopsis given in E. B. Davis' chapter in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (a theological book some like to pretend doesn't exist).
Upvote
0
Oh, it exists, I have a copy! I am currently reading Inspiration and Incarnation, by Peter Enns. Perspectives on an Evolving Creation is next on my nightstand.
Upvote
0
BeforeTheFoundation
Regular Member
I would add that another important message of Genesis 1 is a polemic against false gods.Vance said:
Amen!
Precisely.
Upvote
0
Scotishfury09
G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life
It sure was, and it left a beautiful... oh, wait, the sky's still blue.
Upvote
0
Gen 7 says that the windows of heaven were opened, not the the firmament was emptied.
But saying that the firmament was emptied kind of misses what the firmament is - it's the space between the waters. It's already empty. Well, not entirely. In the firmament are birds. Not only are there birds, but the sun, moon and stars as well. So how is it that there can be a layer of water high above the earth with all the astronomical bodies between that water and the earth?
My point is for people to explain how they can reconcile Gen 1 with actual science without claiming that geocentrism is the actual model of how the universe works, for Gen 1 describes the creation of a geocentric universe.
But saying that the firmament was emptied kind of misses what the firmament is - it's the space between the waters. It's already empty. Well, not entirely. In the firmament are birds. Not only are there birds, but the sun, moon and stars as well. So how is it that there can be a layer of water high above the earth with all the astronomical bodies between that water and the earth?
My point is for people to explain how they can reconcile Gen 1 with actual science without claiming that geocentrism is the actual model of how the universe works, for Gen 1 describes the creation of a geocentric universe.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
