Peut etre vous pouvez me l"expliquer.
Maybe you can give me your perspective.
Oooooh, Randy, metanarrative is not de rigueur I realise, un petits récit, peut-être. A modest localized narrative, as a grand scheme is not how reality works.
My story of my point of view, in the multiplicity of theoretical standpoints, has boiled down in 60 odd years to the tension between rationalism and faith, having been hijacked by fundamentalism 50 years ago. I chose the wrong parents. They had no answers. Nor did my peers or teachers. A cult did. For nearly 30 years. If it hadn’t deconstructed itself 25 years ago, I’d still be its creature.
Rationalism has pruned my faith down to the bone and beyond. But I still want to believe. And see the Holy Spirit yearning away at humanity, particularly on the Perso-Judeo-Helleno-Christian trajectory. Above all in the divine genius of Jesus.
You?
Rookie mistake.
1 Like
Do I get another go?
Well, you can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can’t pick your friend’s nose- or your parents!
3 Likes
You don’t know that. We had a nice discussion about some of the possibilities the other day:
Did they also believe that the Earth went around the sun?
AIG thinks “the heavens” in 1:1 are “the invisible earth particles” the sun, moon and stars would be made of on Day Four. The Hebrew word for “heavens” in 1:1 is also used in 1:14 when God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens.” Then in 1:20 God said, “let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” So unless you think the birds flew where the sun, moon and stars are; it’s not speaking of the heavens where the sun, moon and stars were created; but rather the “heavens” where the sun, moon and stars were “made to be seen,” having been created long BEFORE Genesis.
Light before the sun could be the CMB ?
That’s great. Because since when the Bible is ambiguous, you can make it say whatever you want.
I don’t, but the ancient Israelites and people groups definitely did. Essentially the problem here is that you (or AiG) appears to have the presupposition that this text needs to line up with their understanding of modern science and they need to make all the details fit into whatever their understanding is of the natural world. This is essentially like holding the text hostage (to their current understanding of the natural world which changes all the time) instead of letting it speak on its own terms in the ancient world.
5 Likes
Genesis one is not God’s record of the creation of the Universe, leading to humankind on Earth, given to Moses. It is a human created myth of the creation of the Earth and visible astronomical bodies, and that portion of humankind beginning with the genetic progenitors of Abraham and Sarah, only, who were given the names “Adam and Eve”. Genesis is the first book in a “library” of books all collected for, to or about only those people in the world whom God has peculiarly chosen for himself, or who chose him. This first of those library books, was written only to the descendants of Abraham through Sarah, the children of Israel, and no one else. The earliest those progenitors could have come up out of Africa was less than 6,000 years ago. However, thousands of archaeologists, anthropologists, and geneticists have proven that hunter-gatherer settlements - not just nomads - actually lived in the Levant 10,000 years ago. The same scientists have massive proof that aboriginal Australians migrated out of Africa 55,000 years earlier than Adam and Eve did.
When Genesis was written, during the period of the Babylonian Captivity, . 598 to 538 BCE, the different versions (in Gen. I and II) presented by the combination of Judahites, Benjamites and Levites who had been carried away to Persia, were not making any attempt to present any creation folklore but their own. Different Homo sapiens people remains have been found going back 100,000 years, but no Israelite would have any interest in writing down their mythologies; they would never even have had contact with them. Christians need to get real and start recognizing what the Bible is, and what is not.
It is definitely God’s, but it is not a book; it is a library. It contains some of God’s word, but as a whole it is not the word of God; most was written by men. Some is actual history; some is fantasized history; some is even mistaken history - minor mistakes - who was pharoah at what time, for example. After all, the history in and out of Epypt was not written down for 1,500 years until after it happened.The precepts of God, however, are infallible, unchangeable. It is neither for nor about the world at large; it is to, for and about God’s People, both whom he chose for himself, and those who would choose him, recognizing his as their only Creator, Father, King, Leader, Provider, Healer, Authority. It is a relational book, not a science text book, and not a history text book.
God is real. The miracles of Jesus are real. The power of the Holy Spirit is real. The promises of God are real. Spiritual principles are just as true and unchanging as physical ones, and totally misunderstood by most Christians, sadly. This is not to condemn, but to uncover a hidden massive wealth of spiritual help, strength, equipment, and resources that most don’t realize we have been given. The average Christian does not realize we are all able, if properly equipped through that which is The Word of God, to heal the sick and cast out demons just as Jesus did. I do. The Word of God, that which has dynamic power of the Holy Spirit within it, is true, but the Bible needs to be read with both wisdom and understanding, There is no private interpretation of scripture, but by the Holy Spirit. God has revealed truth both by his Spirit in receptive hearts, but also in focused minds of scientists.
I have been a pastor, evangelist and missionary in past seasons; I have been a Bible scholar, teacher, author and Christian counselor for more than 50 years. My original education and career was as a research scientist before God re-purposed me for himself.
Most of my current writing is done at https://www.quora.com/profile/Maggie-Eriksson see content. My book “The Still Small Voice of Jesus” (meditations on things he has spoken) is available at Xulon press
Though “Genesis one is not God’s record of the creation of the Universe,” it is most certainly not, “a human created myth…” Many Bible scholars have known these early civilizations were BEFORE Adam and Eve, as was the creation of the Universe; meaning there’s no need or proof that any part of Genesis is a “human created myth.” Yes it’s known that over time minor errors have crept in here and there; but nothing major enough to change any cardinal doctrine or belief. By faith we know, “All Scripture is inspired by God” (II Tim. 3:16). Paul said, “For it was Adam who was created first and then Eve. And Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (I Tim. 2:13-14). Jesus called Seth, “the son of Adam” (Lk. 3:38). If we can pick and choose which events in Scriptures are “God inspired and historical” and which are “human created myths,” who is to say where to draw the line? When Genesis one is correctly understood, we can tell the planet Earth, and the sun, moon and stars were “uncovered,” during the six days a few thousand years ago–not “created” then. Sure The Bible is a collection of books, but that doesn’t make it any less accurate.
One place to start, to draw the line, disinterestedly, as a posit, is above the texts, with “human created myths,” above that and see if there is anything that can go above that in turn and on what basis. The first basis for me is testable, repeatable evidence through rational inquiry. Historical evidence and scientific evidence. At what point can the transcendent, the sublime, God go above the line? It will vary for us depending on our epistemologies: how we know what we know.
But we can all get them above the line unless we’re helpless utter physicalists who have no desire for meaning, purpose, transcendence; God.
It was because they were in a time in which they would have thought that way. While Jesus was fully God, He was also full human as well and the product of His time and thought in a manner close to how people in 1st century Judea would have thought.
They were 2,000 years closer to the time of Moses than we are!
If Jesus was ignorant concerning Adam, being an honest man, He would’ve admitted He didn’t know anything for sure about him.
You know that a large majority of the OT was written post-exile? That includes Genesis and Exodus as Moses didn’t write any of the Torah whatsoever. All of it was written after the exile when the Jewish scribes started to collect their religious stories and traditions and merge them together and formed the stories of the Torah and Prophets. Genesis is obviously a merger of various stories (especially Genesis 1-11) that were made to form a narrative that would lead into the events of the Exodus (and while I do believe the Exodus was a historical event, I don’ think it happened 100% as told within the book) and the other “historical books” of the OT.
Often honest men don’t know what they don’t know, and may think they know something that is not known. Now, how that applys to Jesus, I don’t know.
1 Like
Is it at least plausible that Jesus was right in thinking Moses wrote Genesis? There are many who have a “little (dangerous) knowledge” concerning who wrote Genesis, But among those who are extremely-well-learned, such as the brilliant, Merrill F. Unger, who wrote: “Both Scripture and tradition attribute the book’s authorship to Moses, who was eminently qualified both in the divine and human plan to compile the book (cf. Acts 7:22). Many oral and written records were available to this eminent Hebrew sage and man of God, plus the fact that he had intimate communion with Deity in the desert. What information Moses could not obtain on the natural plane to write Genesis, God gave him by revelation on the supernatural plane.
Critics deny Mosaic authorship of both Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch. They present a so-called Documentary Theory, making the book a product of composite sources, welded together centuries after Moses’ lifetime. The narrative sections (J and E) were supposedly fitted into the skeletal history of the origin of the Jewish nation, called the Priestly Code §, in the late exilic or postexilic period.
The Documentary Theory, though highly developed and deceptively plausible, is a product of rationalistic skepticism and is at variance with clear lines of historical and scriptural evidence supporting the unity of the Pentateuch.” (Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament, p.2)
It would not allow me to say “Priestly Code §”???
No P allowed???