And if you think Genesis 2 teaches a 1 day creation of all things, I can see why you have troubles understanding Genesis.
"In the
day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had sprung up....." Gen 2:4b-5a
That is the beginning of the second creation account. There is no indication of another day occurring anywhere in chapter 2 and for all we know all of chapter 3 also happened on the same day.
If you change the interpretation of Genesis so that it does not coincide with the authors intent, you have put your own meaning into the text.
Right. That is why I try very hard to avoid that and to discover the actual intent of the author. No one can claim to fully know the intent of a person long dead, but we can definitely rule out some things since they were not discovered yet e.g. that he thought the earth as a sphere, and we can make a good case for other things since they are part of the common culture and world-view of the time e.g. that the firmament is a solid structure.
Atleast you can be honest enough to state that you think the author of Genesis is wrong about the structure of the universe. Since, God is the one who inspired what is written in Genesis, you believe God is wrong.
The author did not know the true structure of the universe. God, as Creator, did know. But he permitted the author to use the description of his time, as the bible is not intended to be a message about science, but about God.
Actually, many ancient Hebrews believed the firmament was a solid structure and that is where modern day creationists got this idea.
And let me make this clear, I don't think TEs are the only ones who dismiss an authors intended meaning, I see yecs doing the same thing on other passages within the Bible.
As I stated, the firmament is not some new teaching invented by modern day creationists.
Indeed it is not. It was the near universal pre-scientific view and is found in the mythologies of many ancient peoples, not just the Hebrews. The details differ. In Babylonian myth Marduk makes the firmament from the upper half of his mother Tiamat's body after he kills her. In Maori myth one of the children of the Sky Father and the Earth Mother (who are locked in procreative embrace) forcibly separates them by standing on the earth and pushing the sky up on his powerful shoulders. In Greek mythology, Atlas also holds the sky up on his shoulders. The concept of the sky being a solid structure (firmament) was the concept of all the peoples of the time. Even later, after it was understood that the earth is a sphere, the concept of the firmament did not disappear. It just changed form into the crystal spheres of the heavens in the Ptolemaic scheme of the cosmos.
So it is only in about the last 400 years, a very brief part of human history, that we have become aware that there is no firmament and the sky is actually an immense depth of space.
As far as the movement of the earth, where does the Bible say this doesn't happen? I would hope that you could actually give real examples, within context, knowing full well what the author intended to say. Not some Psalms that is poetic or a passage used to speak figuratively.
You think the form of a text decides whether or not it is figurative? Hardly so.
Out of the mud two strangers came
And caught me splitting wood in the yard,
And one of them put me off my aim
By hailing cheerily "Hit them hard!"
I knew pretty well why he had dropped behind
And let the other go on a way.
I knew pretty well what he had in mind:
He wanted to take my job for pay.
http://www.etymonline.com/poems/tramps.htm
This is poetry. Do you see any metaphors there, any similes, any allegory? Is it not a simple description?
I haven't checked Frost's biography, but it is even possible that this poem was based on an actual real-life experience.
By the same token, something written in prose may be entirely figurative. Pilgrim's Progress is written as a prose narrative, yet it is allegorical throughout.
The same in the psalms. Each psalm, each statement, needs to be checked out. It is true of poetry in any age that metaphors, figures, and ordinary literal statments will be mixed together.
Try these:
Let the floods clap their hands and let the hills sing together for joy. Ps. 98:8
No one, then or now, would mistake this for a literal statement. It is a metaphor that anthropomorphizes the floods and the hills, giving them human qualities.
By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and wept... Ps. 137:1
Still poetry, but this time no figure at all. Rather a description of the actual experience of many Judeans in exile.
So you cannot use the "it's a poem" argument to say that the Psalmists did not intend these descriptions to be literal.
The world is firmly established: it shall never be moved. Ps. 96:10
You set the earth on its foundations do that it shall never be moved. Ps. 104: 5
You have established the earth and it stands fast Ps. 119:90
On one note, I would agree with you that throughout the years many have made the Bible say what they wanted it to say. Today, it isn't just TEs who I think do this, but many others, including yecs, oecs on different issues. I have spent many hours debating fellow yecs on other issues that I think they are completely wrong on.
Good for you. It is good to see that some creationists really do care about what the author is saying instead of reaching for any passing excuse to "update" the text.
For me, this isn't about upholding a yec position, I don't care about that. What I care about is Truth, God's Truth that I believe is within the Bible. I believe in treating this with care and indepth study. I don't just disagree with TEs on this issue, I disagree with many yecs on other issues. So, I hope this is clear that I don't care about a yec position, but Biblical Truth.
Then we have the same motivation. I am not bound to a TE position. But I am bound to what I see as truth. Evolution, in my view, is God's Truth, just as much as scripture is. If I were convinced that it is not, I would spend no time defending it or a TE position.
I disagree that Paul is speaking about once you accept Jesus as your Savior, there is nothing you can do to lose the Salvation He has given you.
He is not. He is speaking about how the teaching that we are free from the Law has been misrepresented to mean we can do anything at all, including sin all the more so that grace may abound all the more.
You made virtually the same statements about the doctrine of eternal security. e.g.
critias said:
This is a most dangerous view point, in my opinion. That one can truly accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, then go ahead and commit as many sins as you wish, because God won't judge you accordingly to these sins, since the believer believes Jesus has already paid for them.
"Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, no need to change your life, or do anything different. Sin as much as you wish, just believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God Lord of all."
That is just as much a misrepresentation of that doctrine as the misrepresentation Paul was correcting.
For one who is a TE and believes that Adam died spiritually, after he was with God, your position of eternal security doesn't make much sense.
Adam did not need salvation until after the Fall. Did God give him the grace of salvation when he needed it? Then, if God chose to save him, his salvation was secure.
Look to the following verses and explain how eternal security is true:
Ezekiel 3:20, 33:13, 33:18
Romans 6:16, 8:13
Galatians 5:19-21; 6:8-9
James 1:14-16; 5:19-20
It is not clear to me that any of them have anything to do with eternal security. That does not seem to be their focus.
I don't intend to continue this part of the conversation, because it is apologetics and belongs in that forum. Also, there is no way ultimately to settle questions like these. When the most learned theologians have not resolved this question in centuries, you and I will not either. So there is no point in arguing about it.