The PCA Creation Report

[Placid]

The Calendar Day Interpretation. The Day-Age Interpretation. The Framework Interpretation. The Analogical Days Interpretation. And the list goes on...

Do you understand the history behind and arguments both for and against the many different views that Christians hold concerning creation?

Though I am not affiliated with the PCA, I highly recommend the PCA Creation Report as an excellent overview of the issues surrounding current creation debates in Christian circles:

http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Interesting and long.

It will take a bit for me to brouse through this.

Thanks for posting it.

 

[Follower of Christ]

"In the knowing, that truth will indeed set us free. Until we know, Christ’s Church must not be divided over what we do not yet know."

FOC:
Well, I did agree with that....

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i want to thank you for posting the link to the PCA creation report, after spending over a year now on the discussion of creation-evolution i have come to respect it as the best institutional essay on the topic available on the net.....

 

[lucaspa]

The Calendar Day Interpretation. The Day-Age Interpretation. The Framework Interpretation. The Analogical Days Interpretation. And the list goes on...

Do you understand the history behind and arguments both for and against the many different views that Christians hold concerning creation?

Though I am not affiliated with the PCA, I highly recommend the PCA Creation Report as an excellent overview of the issues surrounding current creation debates in Christian circles:

http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html

I understand the historical debate. Unfortunately, the PCA seems to have gotten some of these wrong. However, what disturbs me most is this:
"1. Literal.
· Hermeneutical sense: the meaning the author intended (focuses on communication from author to original audience). Does not exclude beforehand figurative descriptions, anthropomorphisms, hyperbole.
· Literalistic sense: take the text in its most physical terms, without allowance for figures of speech (focuses on surface meaning). This tends to equate surface meaning with intended meaning.
When we pursue a properly literal interpretation, only the hermeneutical sense of “literal” has priority for us."
The PCA does not follow their own definition of "literal", because they do not look at what the authors really intended, but only what the PCA thinks the authors intended. They don't look at the historical context in which Genesis 1-3 was written.

What's worse, they are not even internally consistent with their use of "literal". "We believe that the Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. We affirm that Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. " Genesis 1 is not coherent with 2-3. A literal meaning of what the author intended would show the contradictions between the two creation stories. For instance, Genesis 1 is clear that birds were created before land animals and humans. Yet Genesis 2 has birds and animals created after Adam! Both are very clear as to what the author intended. But the PCA simply looks over this to reach the conclusion they want: that the stories are coherent.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Genesis 1 is clear that birds were created before land animals and humans. Yet Genesis 2 has birds and animals created after Adam!

The correct tense regarding the birds is the past tense - God "had made" them before this point, and now "brought them to" Adam. This is clear from the context in the original language, and would be obvious to those reading it. There is no contradiction between the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts, but some English translations have tended to make it appear as you say. The NIV is among those which translate it accurately.

Blessings, Susana

 

[Chi_Cygni]

According to your interpretation the NIV is accurate. Most Christians would contend that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are contradictory - because they are.

 

[KleinerApfel]

According to your interpretation the NIV is accurate. Most Christians would contend that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are contradictory - because they are.

"Most"? Have you asked them all?

Probably most Christians in the world, past and present, have not been so hindered or misled by worldly "knowledge" and would simply believe the bible as written.