None that I know of. The universe is believed to be about 14 billion years old. I've been teaching Genesis for decades, and I don't remember a different number.How many billions of years have been added to the age of the universe over the past five decades? We may even be in the trillions by now. It seems that they need to add billions of years every time they need a higher probability factor.
Yes, what a beautiful world it would be if everyone agreed with my view. Bliss. A world of peace and unity. Is that too much to ask? (most probably)... That would be very refreshing and tons of problems would disappear. And instead of living according to some details in the book we would live by the Spirit in us. Imagine how many arguments and killings would disappear from the human history with such a view. We would live according to the main points of the Bible without arguing about whether the Leviathan in the sea is literal or just represents chaos. If waters in Genesis represent chaos or if God created from literal waters (and who created waters) etc.
Imagine how much energy and time we would save and could invest into other things. Sometimes Christians look like Flat Earthers, investing all their free time to proving something that is obviously wrong. The text in Genesis is not even preserved perfectly, but Christians argue about single words in it... its like doing precise math from unprecise numbers. ...
Could you list your top five problems with being a literalist. I loved your use of the word "legion". - lol
Perhaps they are already covered in the thought of people that "defend the lamest things because of literalism"? Any pet peeves, or ones that really irk you? I don't imagine you are easily irked. - lol
I wouldn't say it's a matter of accommodating a secular position. Christian writers from early on have commented on the internal issues with the creation account (e.g. Origen, Augustine).
I'm sure this Augustine quote comes up every time this topic comes up, so I'll keep with precedent:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
Even Augustine was unwilling to reject the deliverances of reason and experience in favor of a particular reading of scripture. The book of scripture and the book of nature both come from God, and it's up to us to figure out how best they relate.
Thanks for posting that quote from Augustine.... Even Augustine was unwilling to reject the deliverances of reason and experience in favor of a particular reading of scripture. The book of scripture and the book of nature both come from God, and it's up to us to figure out how best they relate.
Not with my view, but with simplifying basics of faith to unnecessary minimum - for everyone.Yes, what a beautiful world it would be if everyone agreed with my view. Bliss. A world of peace and unity. Is that too much to ask? (most probably)
Real peace comes when we let everyone have their own opinion and we respect them for it. But I suppose even that is unachievable. (sigh)
He did not just put Law as such aside, He explicitly said that the Law contains human rules that are not from God and are even against God's nature.Well... Jesus was pretty specific about those things. He put the law aside, but he didn't discount its prophetic value. (of the Law, capital L, the Books of the Law) But that's another topic. (available now on this forum)
The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
- Was Adam the first human, a created being?
Yes, but this was not necessarily in outward appearance. Jesus took on flesh when he was alive on the earth but God is not a man. I believe this is something far less less tangible to do with the spirit.- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)
- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?
Like all scripture it is what God wanted us to know.- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)
- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)
Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Don't be such a literalist with my post words. - lolNone that I know of. The universe is believed to be about 14 billion years old. I've been teaching Genesis for decades, and I don't remember a different number.
According to Wikipedia the first reasonably accurate estimate of the age of the universe was made in 1958.
No. Ancient theology was mythical, not theoretical.Aren't BOTH "ancient cosmology" and our current view (which could change) of the universe theoretical?
Not sure what you mean by absolute. The Perseverance is making photos on Mars. Its not based on mythological worldview of the Bible, but on today's knowledge. It simply works.I don't see any reason to make the current scientific view absolute.
Today's cars also look significantly different from the first cars, but they still have wheels. We know for sure that the world is not thousands of years old, its much older.How many billions of years have been added to the age of the universe over the past five decades? We may even be in the trillions by now. It seems that they need to add billions of years every time they need a higher probability factor.
Christianity is a trust in God and in Christ. Not a trust in the literal reading of Genesis or in every word in the Bible. Bible is not even mentioned in any old Christian creed.Saint Steven said: ↑
It used to bother me that we couldn't put the puzzle together, as it were. Then it dawned on me that if we could, then faith would not be required.
You are still requiring everyone to bow to your view in order to see peace. Those who refuse to bow are enemies of your chosen ideology, correct?Not with my view, but with simplifying basics of faith to unnecessary minimum - for everyone.
The less rules, the better.
Not with my view, but with simplifying basics of faith to unnecessary minimum - for everyone.
The less rules, the better.
Why one head, two arms, two legs, a bottom to sit on, feet to walk with, eyes to see, ears to hear, etc. ???Yes, but this was not necessarily in outward appearance. Jesus took on flesh when he was alive on the earth but God is not a man. I believe this is something far less less tangible to do with the spirit.
Sometimes, yes. But I do not spend so much time and energy on looking for how to "debunk" science all around me and how to defend strange things in the Bible, as I was when I was a fundamentalist.Are you guilty as well?
Saint Steven said: ↑
I see plenty of word parsing from those with the figurative view. Like the day/age theory.
I said "ancient cosmology" not "Ancient theology".No. Ancient theology was mythical, not theoretical.
Doesn't that research debunk previous theories about the surface of Mars? Thus changing the view of science.Not sure what you mean by absolute. The Perseverance is making photos on Mars. Its not based on mythological worldview of the Bible, but on today's knowledge. It simply works.
None that I know of. The universe is believed to be about 14 billion years old. I've been teaching Genesis for decades, and I don't remember a different number.
According to Wikipedia the first reasonably accurate estimate of the age of the universe was made in 1958.
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?