Really? really? How many times do I have to be clear? I just said that the 6 days were not 24 hours. I honestly don’t know how you get your interpretation. You guys believe that Adam was not the first human, when scripture calls him the first man, you even said earlier that Genesis is just a MYTH and is false! You guys can add doctrine than contradicts with scripture, but that is just not accepting the authority of the word of God. If you guys don’t believe in one part of the scripture, why believe any of it?
Right, because we keep telling you there is a bigger picture to look at than a few words on a page. There is understanding a whole context and culture that goes into understanding what those words mean and imply and what people back then inferred the story was trying to communicate. You want something black and white and mathematical, and that isn’t how interpretation of meaning in language and analysis of literature works. When we say “the Bible isn’t a science textbook” we mean we think your whole approach to understanding it is treating it like something it isn’t intended to be. So there is a huge disconnect. There aren’t “simple” answers to the questions you are asking because we disagree with many of your fundamental assumptions about what the Bible does.
4 Likes
No it is not. You have been misinformed. It is a completely different creation account that was added to the original.
I think a failure to recognize that Genesis was never meant to be concordantly read through a modern lens is the actual issue. You keep reverting back to highly literal readings of things and asking the same questions because you keep assuming the same hermeneutic that many of us do not share.
Pushing something with a wooden literalism that is supposed to furnish evidence for a wooden literal interpretation of Genesis is just painting a target around the arrow to me. It’s the concordist reading I reject so I reject it much the same when you use it in passages outside the two creation narratives.
1 Like
Right, so you guys believe that my interpretation is wrong, not explaining anything. Not showing me your arguments, just saying that these passages are symbolic, and not providing evidence to back up your claims. Your not explaining anything well. I looked at the context, and it isn’t changing anything. What is the intention of the bible then? Do you guys believe that parts of the bible are WRONG? Why would they write those verses down anyway?
Well explain your interpretation. Go ahead.
Ive done it multiple times in the other threads you created. Also, look at this thread:
Ok. You deny the authority of the bible, the word of God. Instead of the bible, you trust science, even though it contradicts the scripture. You believe things that contradict the historical record of the bible. Basically, that’s what your saying, but in different words. Yes, not everything in the bible is to be taken literally, but it seems like you deny many things that were clearly written down in the bible.
If those things in the bible are wrong, then Christianity most likely is wrong as well.
We don’t expect to be able to, because we are talking about nuanced things that require lots of background knowledge. We have pointed you towards reliable scholars who have spent years gaining expertise and have explained things really well in lay terms. But it takes BOOKS to explain the answers to the questions you are asking. We aren’t going to write a book for you here, if you want to understand what we understand, you are going to have to invest your own time into studying out the issues and not assume fifteen minutes on a forum are going to make things clear. That’s a ridiculous expectation.
2 Likes
And I am not taking a completely literal view of the bible. Adam was the first human, and sin entered the world through him. ( 1 corinthians 15:45, Romans 5:12)
Ok. So don’t call my conclusions wrong if you can’t provide evidence. And the things you pointed out don’t answer any of my questions. I give up. It seems like you guys can’t answer. I told you my question, and if you can’t answer it, don’t say anything.
You don’t really get to tell people here how to interact with you. People can respond however they would like in line with our gracious dialogue policies. This forum doesn’t exist to provide you your idea of satisfactory customer service.
2 Likes
You are confusing your interpretation of the Bible with the authority of the the Bible. You are not God and I unequivocally reject you putting your interpretation of Scripture on par with Scripture.
I think science compliments scripture. God gave me the ability to reason and one of the major points of Genesis 1 is that the ordered nature of the world is due to God. I am merely studying his handiwork and using the cognitive faculties he gave me.
The Bible contains lots of history but it is RARELY concerned with pure history. It is almost always blended with theology. It is more interested in God, human behavior, good deed and the current life setting of the author than modern historiography.
My understanding of what is and isn’t literal is just different from the narrative you have been taught by concordant readings of scripture. I read everything in its original context as far as I am able. You appear to have a narrow view of inspiration and only allow certain non-literal readings in specific places as long as they don’t upset the predetermined status quo of what you’ve think the Bible says. You are so immersed in this understanding you can’t see any alternative.
Vinnie
1 Like
LOL!
No one here has said they are wrong. I certainly am not an inerrancy advocate but I never said anything in creation accounts is wrong. It’s your interpretation that is wrong. We believe Genesis is saying something completely different than what you do. If it says what you think it does then we think it would be wrong. We, however, think it says something else.
The accuracy and meaningfulness of Genesis must be judged based on its intended meaning and literary genre.
Vinnie
2 Likes
Ok. let’s just have a discussion. You guys say that no one said the bible is wrong. Yet in your article, you guys claim Adam wasn’t the first man . In 1st Corinthians 15:45, Adam is called " the first man". How do you interpret this? This is just an example.
To do something doesn’t imply you are making any thing. It is actually translated “do” much more often than make. You are basing something (actually I don’t know what) on a translator’s word choice (which is errant and fallible). If you are good with that fine, but don’t expect other people to agree with you.
In many languages the verb for do and make are the same. Or the verb for go and walk are the same. Spanish has two words for be and one for do/make. No two languages have perfectly overlapping semantic ranges for given words.
It sure seems as if you are used to getting your questions answered quickly and simply. If it is really that transparent to you why do you need others to answer? But it also seems like you dislike abiding a question everyone can’t agree has one answer. I find the most interesting questions are worth spending time with and really good ones I’d prefer to get clear on what I think before I hear a lot of other peoples opinions.
3 Likes
@Rohan, how’s this? (1) Gen 1 speaks of creation, using literal days in a figurative week. (2) Exodus refers back to the story as an analogy for the rhythm of human work & rest. Why figurative? Well, that question takes into account genre and purpose (which takes some time to unpack). But a less-than-wooden reading has the advantage of removing otherwise obvious discrepancies.
BTW, if you read Exod 31:17 too literally, you’ll have to conclude that God got tired ("…and was refreshed"). This is one of many indicators that the description of God’s act of creation is anthropomorphic.
3 Likes