Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I realize it wasn't addressed to me. The thing is, with a forum discussion, a post doesn't need to be addressed to you in order for you to comment on it. But if you don't want to answer, that's okay, too.
I can understand being agreeance with someone and taking their side, no problem.
But don't throw the "nice " card, Katzpur! Somehow it doesn't seem to fit.
I think he means that Fundamentalism arose in reaction to the liberal theology that began during the age of enlightenment.
However, what I'm discussing, aside from the scientific reasons why the creation story isn't literal, is what biblical scholars have long known, which is that the Bible has to be understood within its ancient Near East culture and context. You simply cannot apply our modern western culture to an ancient culture which is alien to our own and expect to understand what the biblical writers were saying and why they said it.
Amen! This cannot be overemphasized, Michael, but in addition, the evolutionary stage of human cognitive and emotional development has to be considered as well. It is not appropriate to apply mature modern interpretations to what I refer to as the very early spiritual childhood of our species. If we look back only a few generations from our own, we can see huge perceptual and emotional differences in only a few generations distant. We have the silent movie era as recorded proof. Watch one of the silent movie dramas that were responded to with all seriousness by that generation. What are your reactions likely to be today? Just imagine the kinds of cultural, generational, and cognitive differences that existed in our primitive ancestors thousands of years ago!
I don't know when Homo sapiens were created or the homo rectus, or even the neanderthal man, But what I see is that the story of Adam and Eve what God created was the soul of man where God could interact with man ...... As if God created man in the flesh 6,000 year ago in the literal interpretation, then where did Cain wife come from, because she could not have existed in the literal interpretation of the genesis story ....... Still there are talking servants like the devil in the high place realm were fallen angels on the earth are
The bolded does pose a problem for a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story. After all, as the story reads, taking it for what it actually says, Cain got married and built a city before Adam and Eve even gave birth to Seth who as the story again reads was only the third child of Adam and Eve. Now someone might say that Adam and Eve had other children before Seth but who aren't mentioned, but that's reading into the story something it doesn't say and is therefore mere speculation.
Genesis chapter 5 picks up from Genesis 2:4, the generations, or the book of generations, history - Genesis 2:5 to Genesis 5:2
I don't believe that anything before Genesis chapter 11 need be taken literally. Certainly the destruction of all mankind in a global flood except for Noah and family is not historical. It never happened and the geological records proves that it never happened.
Oh there may have been some actual history in the genealogies preserved in ancient records, but the story about the flood is not factual.
If we can't believe the creation model is literal then we can't believe Jesus literally died for the sins of man either. Then we can't believe anything the Bible offers.
Throw the Bible in the trash and join the atheists.
Those who believe in works for salvation will be asked one day why you ignored this plain scripture.
Titus 3:5-7
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
That's the story, but again, according to that story, not only was the sun and moon made on the fourth day, but so were the stars. That's just not how modern cosmology understands the universe to be.
We have been over this, so for those who did not see our discussion read my reply here.
Yes it was for we are Adam and it is the story of humanity.
Quote:
but to an ancient culture which was quite alien to our 21st century Western culture. What did the story mean to the writer and to the original audience who heard or read the story? What did it mean to them? Their concerns were quite different than ours. They were not interested in a scientific explanation for creation, but rather in giving the credit for creation to the Hebrew God Yahweh and not to the gods of the nations. The Genesis creation story is mainly a polemic against the other creation stories which existed in the Ancient Near East
That is total Hubris on the part of your scholars as they are telling the Jews what they believed instead of listening to what the Jews who wrote those scriptures believed. As seen in the link I supplied the Jews held that the sun, moon and stars were created in the beginning and on the 4th day God set the limits of their habitation and gave them for signs and seasons etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
But rather, God used men to write the various books of the Bible who then wrote within the framework of their own time and culture using cosmological concepts which they understood even though those concepts were not scientifically correct. God wasn't interested in correcting their cosmological worldview. God was interested in getting across to the ancient Hebrews that He (Yahweh) was their God and not the gods of the nations. The writer of Genesis and the people to whom he wrote lived in an ancient and non-scientific time and culture who could only understand things from that perspective. And so God condescended to speak to the ancient Hebrews at their own level of understanding using concepts which made sense to them.
It wasn't necessary to provide a 21st century cosmology regarding the true nature of the universe and how it came to be. Instead, God communicated certain truths about Himself allowing the ancient misconceptions of the cosmos to stand.
Therefore, the writer of Genesis constructed a creation story which drew upon generally accepted beliefs of the ancient Near East and used the story with all of its inaccuracies from a modern scientific viewpoint, to communicate certain theological truths. The Genesis creation story is not about HOW Yahweh brought about creation but that Yahweh DID bring about creation. The Genesis creation story was intended to orient the ancient Hebrews to Yahweh since they had been exposed to the beliefs of the Egyptians and the other ANE peoples and their beliefs. Genesis was written to them and addressed their needs and concerns. They were the primary audience. Not us. To understand Genesis you have to remove yourself from our 21 century culture and worldview and read Genesis from the standpoint of the ancient culture in which it was written.
Does that make sense to you?
That is total nonsense from a Jewish perspective. If people want to know what the Jews think of their own scriptures they would be better served to ask the Jews.
For me, option 4 probably comes the closest to matching my own personal belief, although it's still not exact.
None of them are totally correct or totally wrong imo, I can agree in parts with all of them and disagree in parts with all of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’ve felt like that before lol
This cannot be overemphasized, Michael, but in addition, the evolutionary stage of human cognitive and emotional development has to be considered as well. It is not appropriate to apply mature modern interpretations to what I refer to as the very early spiritual childhood of our species. If we look back only a few generations from our own, we can see huge perceptual and emotional differences in only a few generations distant. We have the silent movie era as recorded proof. Watch one of the silent movie dramas that were responded to with all seriousness by that generation. What are your reactions likely to be today? Just imagine the kinds of cultural, generational, and cognitive differences that existed in our primitive ancestors thousands of years ago!
