- Jul 20, 2004
- 2,760
- 158
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
-
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.
TE's: How certain is your interpretation of Genesis?
- Thread starter vossler
- Start date
- Status
87.394%
I'm open to any interpretation, really. But until someone can present a better, more consistent hermeneutic than accomodationism, I'm fairly convinced other scientific concordist views are mistaken.
I'm open to any interpretation, really. But until someone can present a better, more consistent hermeneutic than accomodationism, I'm fairly convinced other scientific concordist views are mistaken.
Upvote
0
I know that I aimed at an average among some things I am 100% sure of (the early chapters of Genesis are not history) and some things that I am not at all sure of (is the Framework thesis the best interpretation of Genesis 1?)
Upvote
0
Job 38 teaches believers who actually rely upon God's word that we do not know how God created the heavens and the earth. To declare we are certain seems to say that part of scripture does not apply to me.
Upvote
0
The apparently greater certainty of creationists may be nothing more than a measure of their discomfort with ambiguity. Strong conviction is used to offset anxiety.
Upvote
0
I no longer carry the 'T', but let me say something anyway. (I didn't vote.)
I'll answer as if I still carried the 'T':
The question of interpretation seems like the wrong one. Is the OP asking about interpretation with respect to theology or interpretation with respect to science. If the first, then shouldn't we all answer close to 100%--after all, we agree that God made the universe. We agree that God made man. We agree that (at least with respect to this planet) man was created to have a special relationship with God. We agree that man and woman were created to have fellowship with each other and that each complements the other. We agree that sin puts us at odds with God and God cares about that.
Given all that agreement, shouldn't all the answers be 100%.
Now, if the question is about science, then as a TE I would find the question irrelevant. I don't interpret Genesis to glean scientific information.
The poll in this thread and the other should be: How certain are you about your beliefs of origins [in the face of Genesis]? Or perhaps some other formulation.
I'll answer as if I still carried the 'T':
The question of interpretation seems like the wrong one. Is the OP asking about interpretation with respect to theology or interpretation with respect to science. If the first, then shouldn't we all answer close to 100%--after all, we agree that God made the universe. We agree that God made man. We agree that (at least with respect to this planet) man was created to have a special relationship with God. We agree that man and woman were created to have fellowship with each other and that each complements the other. We agree that sin puts us at odds with God and God cares about that.
Given all that agreement, shouldn't all the answers be 100%.
Now, if the question is about science, then as a TE I would find the question irrelevant. I don't interpret Genesis to glean scientific information.
The poll in this thread and the other should be: How certain are you about your beliefs of origins [in the face of Genesis]? Or perhaps some other formulation.
Upvote
0
I didn't answer because it depends. Am I certain on the theology I get out of Genesis, or am I certain in not interpreting Genesis as a newspaper account? Depending on what the question really is, my answer would be very different.
Upvote
0
D
dies-l
Guest
I don't think that it should come as a surprise that TEs might be considerably less certain about the specifics of their theology of creation than are YECs. It seems to me that, for the most part, one principal distinction between the two groups is not so much their specific views about the origins of the universe, but rather their broader views about biblical interpretation and certainty in general.
The YEC perspective seems to come in large part from an understanding of God and an understanding of Scripture that insists upon a high level of certainty in our understanding of God and Scripture. From experience most YECs see the Bible as a sort of magical answer book that we need only consult to find the solutions to the daily questions of this life spelled out in plain and simple terms if only we are ready to accept and believe. Thus, the Bible is not seen as a product of a time and place (or various times and places) in human history, but rather as a text that completely transcends time and place and speaks directly and plainly to all people who read it with an open and willing heart. Therefore, while it may be benefitcial, it is not necessary to understand the historical & social contexts of the times and places in which the Bible was written. Furthermore, it seems to me that thet YEC position demands certainty of action from God. Therefore, it is expected that God acts as a mirco-manager of the universe, and leaves nothing to chance. Thus, everything that happens in the world, good and bad, is either the will of God or the work of Satan.
The TE position (or at least the position that I myself accept) stems from a much different view of God, Scripture, and certainty. It seems to me that most (Christian) TEs see thet Bible less as a magical answer book and more along the lines of a well-written textbook. A good textbook does not simply tell the reader what he or she is supposed to learn. Instead, it provides information and guidance necessary to stimulate the thinking that will help the reader to discover for him or herself what needs to be learned. It contains far more questions than answers, and the information that it does provide is only the stimulus for a deeper journey of discovery. This view of the Bible sees it as clearly being the product of the times and places in which it was written. Thus, it is essential to consider the historical and social context of these times and places. Furthermore, the TE position seems to be far more accepting of God of free choice and random chance. This view sees God as remaining comfortable with His Soveriegnty, even though He does not directly control everything that happens in His universe. In this view, many of the the good and bad things that happen to us in ouor daily lives might be the product of the hand of God or of Satan, but it is far more likely that they are just products of some combination of random chance and free will.
I am absolutely sure that the above analysis oversimplifies the matter significantly. But, I think it does help to explain why the Creation/Theistic Evolution discussion is so difficult, but also why it is so important and compelling. And, it should explain the results of the survey and the apparent wishy-washyness of TEs (I am actually surprised that several people said that they are 100% sure of their interpretation of Genesis; This fact in itself demonstrates perhaps that I have oversimplified a bit).
The YEC perspective seems to come in large part from an understanding of God and an understanding of Scripture that insists upon a high level of certainty in our understanding of God and Scripture. From experience most YECs see the Bible as a sort of magical answer book that we need only consult to find the solutions to the daily questions of this life spelled out in plain and simple terms if only we are ready to accept and believe. Thus, the Bible is not seen as a product of a time and place (or various times and places) in human history, but rather as a text that completely transcends time and place and speaks directly and plainly to all people who read it with an open and willing heart. Therefore, while it may be benefitcial, it is not necessary to understand the historical & social contexts of the times and places in which the Bible was written. Furthermore, it seems to me that thet YEC position demands certainty of action from God. Therefore, it is expected that God acts as a mirco-manager of the universe, and leaves nothing to chance. Thus, everything that happens in the world, good and bad, is either the will of God or the work of Satan.
The TE position (or at least the position that I myself accept) stems from a much different view of God, Scripture, and certainty. It seems to me that most (Christian) TEs see thet Bible less as a magical answer book and more along the lines of a well-written textbook. A good textbook does not simply tell the reader what he or she is supposed to learn. Instead, it provides information and guidance necessary to stimulate the thinking that will help the reader to discover for him or herself what needs to be learned. It contains far more questions than answers, and the information that it does provide is only the stimulus for a deeper journey of discovery. This view of the Bible sees it as clearly being the product of the times and places in which it was written. Thus, it is essential to consider the historical and social context of these times and places. Furthermore, the TE position seems to be far more accepting of God of free choice and random chance. This view sees God as remaining comfortable with His Soveriegnty, even though He does not directly control everything that happens in His universe. In this view, many of the the good and bad things that happen to us in ouor daily lives might be the product of the hand of God or of Satan, but it is far more likely that they are just products of some combination of random chance and free will.
I am absolutely sure that the above analysis oversimplifies the matter significantly. But, I think it does help to explain why the Creation/Theistic Evolution discussion is so difficult, but also why it is so important and compelling. And, it should explain the results of the survey and the apparent wishy-washyness of TEs (I am actually surprised that several people said that they are 100% sure of their interpretation of Genesis; This fact in itself demonstrates perhaps that I have oversimplified a bit).
Upvote
0
I don't think I can assign a % to it. Like someone else said, if you can give me an interpretation that is better than the one I hold, more power to you. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and say that I'm right no matter what else you may present to me. But from what I've encountered in my time on this planet, the way I see things is the "interpretation" that I have found to be the best thus far.
Upvote
0
marktheblake
Member
- Aug 20, 2008
- 1,039
- 26
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
I dont remember voting, but it looks like I did, before I realised what a TE is.Still dunno what it is, but am pretty sure I aint one
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
I'm going with 90%. I'm as sure as I am of birefringence induced in air by focused 50GW femtosecond pulses that YEC is wrong and a non-scientific reading of Genesis is necessary. I can't go with 100% in good conscience because it would suggest perfect knowledge or perfect faith (which would require perfect knowledge of exactly where I should put my faith).
Of course theistic evolution is quite diverse theologically -- I think that's necessary too because the Bible is highly insufficient when it comes to a perfect description of God (duh?).
Anyway, the premise of the poll might be flawed, but it served its purpose in seeding discussion of the topic! I'm afraid that's what you get when you ask reasoning thinkers simplified questions about their theological beliefs.
Of course theistic evolution is quite diverse theologically -- I think that's necessary too because the Bible is highly insufficient when it comes to a perfect description of God (duh?).
Anyway, the premise of the poll might be flawed, but it served its purpose in seeding discussion of the topic! I'm afraid that's what you get when you ask reasoning thinkers simplified questions about their theological beliefs.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
