The Deception of Genesis

[Uphill Battle]

I think it's an unbelievable waste to assume that the first thing that springs into my head when I read the bible is the correct and only message God wishes to convey to me.

I don't believe there is only one thing to learn from Genesis. I just do not doubt that God created the earth like he said he did.

 

[ebia]

I don't believe there is only one thing to learn from Genesis. I just do not doubt that God created the earth like he said he did.

That's fine, but it doesn't agree with:

It takes no lengths or effort at all. I read it, I believe it. Two step process.

 

[Uphill Battle]

That's fine, but it doesn't agree with:

how do they disagree, pray tell?

 

[ebia]

how do they disagree, pray tell?

Because finding the other meanings requires more effort than is implicit in "It takes no effort at all..."

 

[Uphill Battle]

Because finding the other meanings requires more effort than is implicit in "It takes no effort at all..."

did I say other meanings? no. I said there is more to learn in Genesis apart from the creation. That doesn't mean I am looking for "what God said, and what he REALLY meant."

 

[ebia]

did I say other meanings? no. I said there is more to learn in Genesis apart from the creation. That doesn't mean I am looking for "what God said, and what he REALLY meant."

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. Is there more than one meaning to Genesis Chapter 1 or not?

 

[Uphill Battle]

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. Is there more than one meaning to Genesis Chapter 1 or not?

meaning? no. Lesson to be learned from it? scads.

 

[ebia]

meaning? no. Lesson to be learned from it? scads.

Those lessons are meanings.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Those lessons are meanings.

semantics. When you say different meaning, you mean something apart from the text. Something different than the explicit writing. I mean that we can derive more truth from it, without having to believe that it isn't literal.

 

[ebia]

semantics. When you say different meaning, you mean something apart from the text. Something different than the explicit writing. I mean that we can derive more truth from it, without having to believe that it isn't literal.

Call it what you will, the "lessons" are there, and are independent of whether or not the "literal meaning" of the text is literally true. The important truths you and I derive from the text will be very similar, and require similar amounts of effort.

So, if we are not disagreeing about the major lessons to be learned, all we are disagreeing about is whether the literal meaning of the text is true or not.

It takes no more effort to believe that the truths/lessons/whatever you choose to call them are what God intends us to learn from them and that the story itself is NOT literally true, than it does to believe the truths/lessons/whatever you choose to call them are what God intends us to learn from them and that the story itself IS literally true.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Call it what you will, the "lessons" are there, and are independent of whether or not the "literal meaning" of the text is literally true. The important truths you and I derive from the text will be very similar, and require similar amounts of effort.

So, if we are not disagreeing about the major lessons to be learned, all we are disagreeing about is whether the literal meaning of the text is true or not.

It takes no more effort to believe that the truths/lessons/whatever you choose to call them are what God intends us to learn from them and that the story itself is NOT literally true, than it does to believe the truths/lessons/whatever you choose to call them are what God intends us to learn from them and that the story itself IS literally true.

I didn't say that the lessons WOULD be different. My assertion is that there is no reasonable arguement in my mind that it was intended as anything other than literal truth.

 

[ebia]

My assertion is that there is no reasonable arguement in my mind that it was intended as anything other than literal truth.

Again you over-simplify your own case, to make it appear more straightforward than it actually is. You have acknowledged that it is intended as something more than a literal text.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Again you over-simplify your own case, to make it appear more straightforward than it actually is. You have acknowledged that it is intended as something more than a literal text.

no, I haven't. I said you could learn alot from it. such as

The power of God.
The creativity of God
Some of his nature (spirit)
his timlessness (existed before the beginning)

but I don't have to acknowledge it as anything other than literal text to see this.

 

[ebia]

no, I haven't. I said you could learn alot from it. such as

The power of God.
The creativity of God
Some of his nature (spirit)
his timlessness (existed before the beginning)

But you don't think God intended us to learn those things from it?

but I don't have to acknowledge it as anything other than literal text to see this.

I said "more", not "other".

 

[Uphill Battle]

But you don't think God intended us to learn those things from it?


I said "more", not "other".

sure he intended us to learn as much as we could from it. Exactly how does that change it from a literal interpretation?

 

[ebia]

sure he intended us to learn as much as we could from it. Exactly how does that change it from a literal interpretation?

It doesn't. It means that there are (a lot of) intended meanings in there that are independent of whether or not it is a literal accurate text. It's primary purpose - to teach us that kind of stuff - doesn't depend on whether or not it is literally true.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It doesn't. It means that there are (a lot of) intended meanings in there that are independent of whether or not it is a literal accurate text. It's primary purpose - to teach us that kind of stuff - doesn't depend on whether or not it is literally true.

riiiight... but again, that's not my assertion.

 

[Critias]

Paul teaches that creation speaks of God's existence. Can you explain to me how the evolutionary theory speaks of God's existence?

 

[shernren]

Well, how does gravity, or the fact that sunlight is yellow instead of purple, speak of God's existence?

Science speaks of God's existence by pointing to God's rational thinking and orderliness. There is also the aesthetic beauty of creation (which is no different in evolutionary theory than in YEC theory).

 

[jackaroo]

God made 7 days for a reason. He did not say that humans and animals were made in the same day. He made them into seperate. Therefore, humans and animals are none alike. We are special to God. Scientists should not learn to degrade ourselves and compare us to animals.