A non-creationist interpretation of Genesis

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by junobet, Jul 21, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi eliah,

    I thought maybe you’re interested in continuing our discussion from the closed thread. If any of our not so friendly atheist friends butt in, please just don’t let them distract you.

    See, this is where we differ: I don’t see science as a danger for the integrity of scripture at all, if anything it can help us to get a better understanding of it, for example by dating papyri etc. I see science as a tool that helps us to progressively understand more about the other source of information we have about God besides scripture: His creation. And I think it would be almost sinful to neglect our God given ability to figure out more and more about it.

    I think you are putting your finger on a very important problem here: A creationist interpretation of scripture that is in plain denial about what we know about the world thanks to modern science is IMHO not only necessarily a wrong interpretation of scripture, it also is a stumbling block for a lot of people who are put off faith altogether by it. That is what Augustine already warned of in the 4th century.

    But the problem is twofold: when their creationist interpretation of scripture makes parents deny their children access to education on proper science, it deprives these children of the opportunity to that abovementioned other source of information God gave us, which is incredibly sad.

    Science and scripture don’t need reconciling, they answer different questions. As Cesare Baronio reportedly put it during the Galileo affair: "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
    I’ve already given you the link to Augustine’s commentary on Genesis, which is one of the earliest Christian interpretations of Genesis we have and whose warnings still sound surprisingly up to date in light of the modern-day discussions on creationism: http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf

    If that 4th century interpretation is not enough “nuts and bolts” for you here is an interpretation of Genesis from a modern Calvinist Reformed perspective using the theological principles of Calvin’s notion of “Divine accommodation” and “Progressive Revelation” . You are a Calvinist Christian, aren’t you? So you ought to be aware you can easily stay a Calvinist Christian without sticking to the false interpretations of creationism.

    It’s a rather long and detailed text, so here are just some excerpts from the introduction. If that gets you interested, I recommend you read the whole thing:

    For more:
    http://www.calvin.edu/academic/religion/faculty/harlow/Creation according to Genesis.pdf
     
    DarkDaimon and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have a thought on the validity of Genesis. Regardless of our theological position, how exactly was God going to explain creation in any form. I think you would have more success explaining the US tax code to a 3 week old baby. If God showed some poor scribe the 13 billion year history of the universe that scribe doesn't even have the basis of a language complex enough to write down what he sees in any coherent form.
     
  3. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed! This is where Divine Accomodation and Progressive Revelation come in. From the text I linked to in the OP:


    http://www.calvin.edu/academic/religion/faculty/harlow/Creation according to Genesis.pdf
     
  4. taikoo

    taikoo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,656
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the process tho, one would not just say things that are completely at variance with reality, surely. Not, knowing that later people will take the words seriously and be lead seriously astray.

    Im puzzled why our lilteralist friends are so loathe to adjusttheir readings to align with observable reality.
    They do now have to admit it is not flat; so they read the bible to never have said flat.

    Those guys are still reading it to say 6 day / 6000 y.a. poof tho.

    Id think catching up with the 19th century wouldnt be so wrenching.

    After believing the bible read that the earth is flat
     
  5. Charles Nicholson

    Charles Nicholson New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you believe that the Bible points to a potential geocentric model of the universe?
    I do. I also believe that the universe can be considered geocentric as surely as it can be heliocentric.

    Scratch that - I KNOW the universe can be explained in terms of geocentricity - so did Mach and Einstein.

    No, this is not a joke. Look it up. It has to do with the theory of relativity. The earth could be moving about, or the heavens could be moving about. Either one clearly explains the phenomena which occur in astrophysics.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The Bible does not claim that the earth is flat.

    Observable reality does not contradict the Bible.

    Please tell me where it does.
     
  6. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,838
    Likes Received:
    7,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Saw this article recently. It's a couple years old but I thought it looked relevant to the topic.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-dudley/christian-faith-requires-_b_876345.html

     
  7. taikoo

    taikoo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,656
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My sentence is ungrammatical. The bible can be read to say that the earth is flat. A lot of people did, and of course we have old illustrations
    showing it as flat.

    Whether observable reality contradicts the bible has to do with how one reads it. Unicorns, 6000yr ago poof, flood. etc are at variance with reality when taken literally.
     
  8. elijah

    elijah New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So scripture is not the issue, interpretation is the issue, right?
     
  9. TheLaw

    TheLaw New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would say they are both an issue.

    As I see it one could read the bible in one of three ways; entirely literally, entirely metaphorically, or some mix of literal and metaphorical truth.
    If it is read literally then we run into the situation where what is said within the bible clearly contradicts observable reality, such as the world being created in 6 days, two members of every species fitting on a wooden boat while the whole earth is flooded, etc. If you choose to read the bible metaphorically then it becomes a piece of literature, where every persons interpretation is just as good as anyone else's and the bible loses much of its explanatory and moral authority. If you choose the mixed option then you run into a problem that is similar to that of the metaphorical reader, then each person gets to choose what is metaphor and what is commandment; making the bible say what they want it to say.

    Am I missing something here, because from where I am standing the bible is at best a piece of literature.
     
  10. taikoo

    taikoo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,656
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course they are both "the issue".

    As for "gets to choose" that is a bit thick for your basic xtain, so they
    say that god helps them. (to each get a different reading! :D)
     
  11. elijah

    elijah New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so if you were to read the paper and it reads, sunset is at 6:10pm, would you read that metaphorically, or literally?
     
  12. TheLaw

    TheLaw New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would have to be put in some context, but most likely I would read it as though the author was trying to convey a literal truth. Now whether sunset is indeed at 6:10 p.m. is a completely separate question.
     
  13. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Better comparison - if you were to read the paper and it reads, "tomorrow there will be a major hurricane", would you read that metaphorically or literally? How about if there was no hurricane the next day?

    In fact, the comparison is just straight-up bad, because virtually nothing in the bible is anywhere near that clearly delineated, and most of it trends in the other direction, where determining it isn't anywhere near as straightforward.
     
  14. carloslebaron

    carloslebaron New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To understand Genesis, the best method is to read the whole context and take notice of each detail as a continued flowing of information that is given IN ORDER.

    There is no need to believe in God and neither to be a Master in theology and similar. The narration of Genesis is simple, and it tells about how the beguinning of the universe comes to be, the developing of life on earth, the formation of man and the birth of the several peoples or nations in ancient times.

    The common interpretation of many creationists about the Genesis is incorrect, they are supporting the creation of the Universe by God, but their understanding is based in traditional interpretations made by religious people of the past. And here is where the error takes control, and where atheists take advantage because some apparent contradictions.

    Again, reading the Genesis, specially the first chapter, the reader must take away anything in favor and against the bible, and just read the narration with the sole intention of understand what it says, not so trying to find something that supports the own beliefs or something to be attacked because it appears to contradict what science ASSUMES about the origin of the universe.
     
  15. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,838
    Likes Received:
    7,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't have to know much about science, or make any assumptions at all, to know that when Genesis tells you the Earth was created before the sun that it's pulling your chain more than a little. Genesis reads exactly the way you would expect a text from back then to read: A description of events made by people with next to no understanding of celestial mechanics. This was their explanation, this is what they came up with to explain their surroundings. So, the surprise shouldn't be when we find things that are wrong, it should be when we don't(which we haven't, as to be expected).

    Another problem religion, and especially literal interpretation of Genesis, face is that the amount of things that science must "assume" versus what it "knows" is growing every day, as it has been for thousands of years. This process will continue until the only thing left to explain is what started it all, which is a problem religion shares with it's own creation story.

    What I've always wondered is, why does no one care about God's beginning or question that, but we must all question the beginning of the universe? To me it's the same problem. The beginning. Religious interpretation just adds an extra step. Instead of the universe existing through unknown mechanisms, God created the universe, but then that means that God exists through unknown mechanisms. I'm just not sure why it's hard to think the universe had no creator, but easy to think that God didn't.
     
  16. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd like to add a condition: do it without any pre-aquired scientific knowledge about the universe. Then see what comes out.

    EDIT: whoops, missed this:

    Um, buddy, science doesn't "assume" anything about the origin of the universe. So apparently, your interpretation seems to already follow my prerequisite.
     
  17. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, from a previous discussion we had I know that you don’t shy away from accepting outsider opinions over an overwhelming scientific consensus if it suits your ideology. If geocentrism floats your boat go for it, but note that you’ll be very very alone in that opinion even among creationists. I hear there even still are some flat-earthers around. You may want to check them out. I’m sure some of them can present their views in ways that sound halfway plausible and ‘scientific’. If you take their opinion on board, too, you can even read Biblical passages literally that say that the earth stands on pillars (Psalm 75:3).
     
  18. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are indeed missing something here, because to start with the bible is not one book but many books from very many different times and genres. So as my link points out, one of the first things you have to do when interpreting a Biblical text is to identify the genre you are dealing with and have a look at the historical context of the times in which it was written.
    .
    The second thing you are missing is that while you need to read a poem in a different way than a newspaper article that does not make that poem completely arbitrary nor devoid of truth. That's why literature is taught in schools. When Harley (as most halfway intellectual interpreters of genesis do), identifies Genesis as declaring monotheism over polytheism of other cultures in its times, when it says that God created the sun for example, you first need to know that the sun was worshipped as Gods in these surrounding cultures. If that proves wrong your interpretation goes down the drain. But in fact we know that it was.
     
  19. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry, but traditionally Christians read Genesis allegorically. Creationism is footed on a relatively new brand of Christianity.

    http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis
     
  20. elijah

    elijah New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you're saying the sun would literally set?

    - - - Updated - - -

    really, what makes your comparison more accurate?
     
  21. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Theists could always say that God controlled time, which is, according to the latest fad science, a dimension. So He accelerated the processes and made the evolution that took millions of years in our time happen within minutes.
     
  22. carloslebaron

    carloslebaron New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't have to know much about science, or make any assumptions at all, to know that when Genesis tells you the Earth was created before the sun that it's pulling your chain more than a little.

    By reading this argument of yours, it is evident that you enjoy a fabulous reading comprehension problem. Your idea that the bible says that the earth was created before the sun is laughable. My suggestion is to learn how to read (how to read anything, not the bible alone) before writing incoherent commentaries about the bible.

    Please, follow the advice, take away everything you have in your mind in favor and or against the bible and read it again.
     
  23. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just realized that it was "nothing". My mistake. Try if the newspaper said "And the winds doth blow strong enough to toss down the house of Jordan" - metaphor (there's something coming that will end Jordan's lineage) or literal (there is going to be a windstorm that will leave Jordan homeless)?
     
  24. carloslebaron

    carloslebaron New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, yeah? So far I have read about one Big Bang, another dude says that they were several big bangs, another dude says that we are not real but holographic projections, etc. etc... OK, which one of the several dudes with their "own origin of the universe" you support at?

    And, please come back when "all those scientific dudes" have finally set an agreement, otherwise, your assumption of the origin of the universe will be partial.
     
  25. taikoo

    taikoo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,656
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just call it "Last Thursdayism"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page