Religions > Bible > Creationism is entirely based on a literal interpretation: is this the correct one?
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"VBM" |
| Date: |
19 Sep 2005 11:52:39 AM |
| Object: |
Creationism is entirely based on a literal interpretation: is this the correct one? |
Why a literalist presumption?
Most YEC's here would agree that were it not for their presumption that the
Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood were meant to be read as literal
historical narrative, the evidence from the natural world would be
compelling enough to conclude the universe and the earth were old, and that
God created over a long period of time. Said another way around, it is this
literalist presumption which overrides what they would otherwise believe
regarding our past and God's method and timing of creation.
So, that presumption is at the core of this issue, and we must look to see
whether that presumption is justified. First, it must be said that for most
YEC's this seems not to be some sort of default position, a starting point,
from which they would move if the evidence was sufficient. It is not a
"rebuttable presumption", but their insistance on literalism is a conclusive
presumption.
Now, why? Why would strict literal historical narrative be the conclusive
presumption? Let's consider some of the factors involved in this issue:
1. We know that the Bible is not a single book written all at one time by a
single human author. God inspired dozens of humans over a couple thousand
years. It is a collection of inspired texts, with a wide variety of literary
styles and genres. God inspired the message, but seemed to let each author
use his own "voice" and style in the telling. We have poetry, parable,
allegory, prophecy, symbology, typology, letters, epic stories and, yes,
some actual history. We do not read Acts the same way we read Revelations,
Song of Solomon or even Job, although we recognize that God is telling us
Truth through all of these styles. So, with all of these varieties of
literary styles, with all of these methods for conveying Truth, we should be
willing to objectively look at these early Genesis accounts and earnestly
seek to determine which literary style they are meant to be. Why have a
conclusive presumption that it must be a particular one of these (strict
historical narrative)? In fact, why even start with a default that it should
be a particular genre unless proven otherwise?
2. I have shown elsewhere that the ancient Israelites, at the time these
stories were first told, and then first written down, would not have viewed
them as strict literal historical narrative. That is simply NOT how they
told about their past. Yes, they would have considered them true and valid
and believable, but not at all have insisted that they must be factually
accurate. I know this is difficult for us to get our modern minds around,
but in such matters they did not have our modern biases. Again, I have
provided evidence for this in the past, and can do so again if requested.
3. Our modern minds tend to only truly value stories about the past to the
extent they are considered historically accurate and literal. If the stories
about the past are told in some other literary style, which does NOT attempt
to convey strict historical details, we consider it unreliable, untrue and
basically invalid. It is JUST a story, it can not be a valid or valuable
method of telling us about things that happened in the past. It is something
LESS than "true history". Oddly, we can accept a presentation of actual,
literal FUTURE events in VERY non-literal terms, as in Revelation. But we
have much more difficulty accepting a presentation of actual, literal PAST
events in such figurative, symbolic, typological language.
4. The fact that God using such a literary style would cause "confusion"
(given His knowledge that we would develop this modern mindset) is no true
argument whatsoever. If God had chosen to make Scripture crystal clear so
that there would be no disputes over proper interpretation, we would not
have hundreds of different denominations and interpretive approaches.
Obviously God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to allow the Scriptures to be
written in a way that is subject to differing, but sincerely held, beliefs
by devout, Bible-believing Christians. This is not evidence of a failure of
communication on God's part elsewhere in Scripture, and it should not be
seen so in Genesis. Why didn't God inspire the text to be written in a way
that all would agree? I can not speak for the rest of Scripture, but for the
Genesis accounts, I would argue that HE DID! Given our disputes over the HOW
and WHEN, it is amazing that almost all Christians seem to agree on the WHO
and WHY. We seem to agree on every theological and doctrinal issue in these
Genesis accounts that is necessary for salvation. And isn't it these that
are the TRUE message of these accounts?
I would suggest that we consider the texts of the early Genesis
presentations in light of the culture, mindset and literary styles of those
who first told them and wrote them down. I would suggest that we be willing
to let God tell us about these past events using whatever literary style He
chose (among the myriad available). I would suggest that we consider whether
these presentations are meant to tell us about the WHO and WHY rather than
the WHEN and HOW.
I would suggest that we come to these texts without presumptions, other than
that presumption that it is telling us truth, however that truth is told. I
make this call because there is a danger that our attention will be drawn
away from the essential message of these accounts by a focus on the
historicity of the details. As Augustine said:
"At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression
literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: "for the letter
killeth, but the spirit quikeneth." That is, when that which is said
figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally
[carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the
soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from
beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of
the letter" [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On
Christian Doctrine 3. 5).
and again when he says:
"37. In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as
we may find treated in Holy Scripture [and remember, he IS speaking of
Genesis here], different Interpretations are sometimes possible without
prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush
in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further
progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall
with it."
.
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism is entirely based on a literal interpretation: is this the correct one? |
19 Sep 2005 12:16:34 PM |
|
|
"VBM" <v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com> wrote in message
news:r1CXe.322$zQ3.114@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Why a literalist presumption?
Most YEC's here would agree that were it not for their presumption that
the
Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood were meant to be read as
literal
historical narrative, the evidence from the natural world would be
compelling enough to conclude the universe and the earth were old, and
that
God created over a long period of time. Said another way around, it is
this
literalist presumption which overrides what they would otherwise believe
regarding our past and God's method and timing of creation.
Pretty good article, but what the hell is a "YEC?"
Submitted for your perusal:
****************************************************
From "The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation"
by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. copyright 2005.
The first creation prophecy
In the first creation prophecy of Genesis [1:1–2:3], everything that God
created evolved from one foundation (i.e. the waters) upwards, as laid out
in simple terms derived from simple understanding.
The prophet presents this prophecy in terms of a seven-day week, where each
“day” is actually just a measure of time on the sliding scale of time. In
addition, the prophet wrote it from the viewpoint of someone standing on the
earth and looking outward.
In this account, God created the overarching form of the universe on the
first “day.”
Then God formed the earth on the second “day.”
God established the plant kingdom on the third “day.”
He then completed the form of the universe, bringing it into focus (as seen
from the earth) on the fourth “day.” (This is where conventional days and
nights begin, establishing two layers of “days” and “weeks” within the same
prophecy).
God created the creatures of the waters and the birds of the air on the
fifth “day.”
He then created the more complex creatures that move on the face of the
earth—which ultimately included men and women—on the sixth “day.”
After this, God sat back and rested, and let everything run its course.
Actually, God will sit back and relax, for everything is still running its
course, and we are still only in the sixth day. The first creation account
is an overall view of the creation from beginning to end, and God has not
finished creating things [Rev 4:11].
Jesus even said that He and His Father are still hard at work, setting up
one of the many arguments between Jesus and the Jews over affairs of the
Sabbath Day. [Jn 5:17–18]
The important thing to notice about the first prophecy is that God in no way
separated the creation of man and woman from the creation of all the other
things in the world, except by the established order.
There is a reason for this: The first prophecy of Genesis is a literal
account of the creation, and it deals with the establishment of the natural
man and his natural world. Hence, the men and women spoken of in this
account are the children of the waters, i.e. the Gentiles.
The second creation prophecy
The second creation prophecy [Gen 2:4–2:25] chronicles the creation of the
spiritual man, i.e. the children of the earth.
In this second account, God created Adam from the substance of the earth
after God created the world, but before He created any other living thing.
[Gen 2:4–7] This places the creation of Adam somewhere around the end of the
second “day” of the first account.
After God created Adam from the substance of the earth (rather than the
waters), He established a “garden” eastward in Eden, which would be the
Mesopotamian Valley from which civilization first sprang. [Gen 2:9] This
would have occurred on the third “day” of the first account.
Then God created “the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and all
wild beasts” (or “cattle”), which are elements of the fifth and sixth “days”
in the first account. As He went along, creating things, God even brought
the things He created to Adam so he could name them. [Gen 2:19]
Finally, God brought forth Adam’s wife, Eve, from Adam’s own body, an event
that would have occurred about the sixth “day” in the first account.
This last act set up an inevitable encounter (and conflict) between “the
sons of God” and “the sons of men.”
***************************************************
The begin to the answer the Genesis controversy, one only has to ask the
question: How did the "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the earth," and
"fowls of the air" that came before man in the first account wind up behind
Adam in the second account?
Then ask Peter what God was talking about. He'll tell you.
Ike
--
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "VBM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism is entirely based on a literal interpretation: is this the correct one? |
19 Sep 2005 12:38:41 PM |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2sKdnRqZb93vb7PeRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
"VBM" <v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com> wrote in message
news:r1CXe.322$zQ3.114@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Why a literalist presumption?
Most YEC's here would agree that were it not for their presumption that
the
Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood were meant to be read as
literal
historical narrative, the evidence from the natural world would be
compelling enough to conclude the universe and the earth were old, and
that
God created over a long period of time. Said another way around, it is
this
literalist presumption which overrides what they would otherwise believe
regarding our past and God's method and timing of creation.
Pretty good article, but what the hell is a "YEC?"
A Young Earth Creationist
Submitted for your perusal:
****************************************************
From "The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in
Revelation"
by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. copyright 2005.
The first creation prophecy
In the first creation prophecy of Genesis [1:1-2:3], everything that God
created evolved from one foundation (i.e. the waters) upwards, as laid out
in simple terms derived from simple understanding.
The prophet presents this prophecy in terms of a seven-day week, where
each
"day" is actually just a measure of time on the sliding scale of time. In
addition, the prophet wrote it from the viewpoint of someone standing on
the
earth and looking outward.
In this account, God created the overarching form of the universe on the
first "day."
Then God formed the earth on the second "day."
God established the plant kingdom on the third "day."
He then completed the form of the universe, bringing it into focus (as
seen
from the earth) on the fourth "day." (This is where conventional days and
nights begin, establishing two layers of "days" and "weeks" within the
same
prophecy).
God created the creatures of the waters and the birds of the air on the
fifth "day."
He then created the more complex creatures that move on the face of the
earth-which ultimately included men and women-on the sixth "day."
After this, God sat back and rested, and let everything run its course.
Actually, God will sit back and relax, for everything is still running its
course, and we are still only in the sixth day. The first creation account
is an overall view of the creation from beginning to end, and God has not
finished creating things [Rev 4:11].
Jesus even said that He and His Father are still hard at work, setting up
one of the many arguments between Jesus and the Jews over affairs of the
Sabbath Day. [Jn 5:17-18]
The important thing to notice about the first prophecy is that God in no
way
separated the creation of man and woman from the creation of all the other
things in the world, except by the established order.
There is a reason for this: The first prophecy of Genesis is a literal
account of the creation, and it deals with the establishment of the
natural
man and his natural world. Hence, the men and women spoken of in this
account are the children of the waters, i.e. the Gentiles.
The second creation prophecy
The second creation prophecy [Gen 2:4-2:25] chronicles the creation of the
spiritual man, i.e. the children of the earth.
In this second account, God created Adam from the substance of the earth
after God created the world, but before He created any other living thing.
[Gen 2:4-7] This places the creation of Adam somewhere around the end of
the
second "day" of the first account.
After God created Adam from the substance of the earth (rather than the
waters), He established a "garden" eastward in Eden, which would be the
Mesopotamian Valley from which civilization first sprang. [Gen 2:9] This
would have occurred on the third "day" of the first account.
Then God created "the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and all
wild beasts" (or "cattle"), which are elements of the fifth and sixth
"days"
in the first account. As He went along, creating things, God even brought
the things He created to Adam so he could name them. [Gen 2:19]
Finally, God brought forth Adam's wife, Eve, from Adam's own body, an
event
that would have occurred about the sixth "day" in the first account.
This last act set up an inevitable encounter (and conflict) between "the
sons of God" and "the sons of men."
***************************************************
The begin to the answer the Genesis controversy, one only has to ask the
question: How did the "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the earth," and
"fowls of the air" that came before man in the first account wind up
behind
Adam in the second account?
Then ask Peter what God was talking about. He'll tell you.
Yes, that is very interesting, and one of the most dramatic evidences of the
non-literal nature of early Genesis texts is these two different creation
accounts. In style, structure and content, they are VERY different, a fact
which is lost when the two are told in a homogeneous English translation.
They SOUND like a continuous text because we currently tell it in a similar
english style.
But the fact of the chronoligical differences should lead us to one of two
conclusions: either they were meant to be read as strict literal historical
narrative, in which case one or the other or both are incorrect, or that
they were NOT meant to be read that way, in which case they can BOTH be
correct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism is entirely based on a literal interpretation: is this the correct one? |
19 Sep 2005 01:20:13 PM |
|
|
"VBM" <v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com> wrote in message
news:BICXe.338$zQ3.0@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2sKdnRqZb93vb7PeRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
"VBM" <v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com> wrote in message
news:r1CXe.322$zQ3.114@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Why a literalist presumption?
Most YEC's here would agree that were it not for their presumption that
the
Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood were meant to be read as
literal
historical narrative, the evidence from the natural world would be
compelling enough to conclude the universe and the earth were old, and
that
God created over a long period of time. Said another way around, it is
this
literalist presumption which overrides what they would otherwise
believe
regarding our past and God's method and timing of creation.
Pretty good article, but what the hell is a "YEC?"
A Young Earth Creationist
Submitted for your perusal:
****************************************************
From "The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in
Revelation"
by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. copyright 2005.
The first creation prophecy
In the first creation prophecy of Genesis [1:1-2:3], everything that God
created evolved from one foundation (i.e. the waters) upwards, as laid
out
in simple terms derived from simple understanding.
The prophet presents this prophecy in terms of a seven-day week, where
each
"day" is actually just a measure of time on the sliding scale of time. In
addition, the prophet wrote it from the viewpoint of someone standing on
the
earth and looking outward.
In this account, God created the overarching form of the universe on the
first "day."
Then God formed the earth on the second "day."
God established the plant kingdom on the third "day."
He then completed the form of the universe, bringing it into focus (as
seen
from the earth) on the fourth "day." (This is where conventional days and
nights begin, establishing two layers of "days" and "weeks" within the
same
prophecy).
God created the creatures of the waters and the birds of the air on the
fifth "day."
He then created the more complex creatures that move on the face of the
earth-which ultimately included men and women-on the sixth "day."
After this, God sat back and rested, and let everything run its course.
Actually, God will sit back and relax, for everything is still running
its
course, and we are still only in the sixth day. The first creation
account
is an overall view of the creation from beginning to end, and God has not
finished creating things [Rev 4:11].
Jesus even said that He and His Father are still hard at work, setting up
one of the many arguments between Jesus and the Jews over affairs of the
Sabbath Day. [Jn 5:17-18]
The important thing to notice about the first prophecy is that God in no
way
separated the creation of man and woman from the creation of all the
other
things in the world, except by the established order.
There is a reason for this: The first prophecy of Genesis is a literal
account of the creation, and it deals with the establishment of the
natural
man and his natural world. Hence, the men and women spoken of in this
account are the children of the waters, i.e. the Gentiles.
The second creation prophecy
The second creation prophecy [Gen 2:4-2:25] chronicles the creation of
the
spiritual man, i.e. the children of the earth.
In this second account, God created Adam from the substance of the earth
after God created the world, but before He created any other living
thing.
[Gen 2:4-7] This places the creation of Adam somewhere around the end of
the
second "day" of the first account.
After God created Adam from the substance of the earth (rather than the
waters), He established a "garden" eastward in Eden, which would be the
Mesopotamian Valley from which civilization first sprang. [Gen 2:9] This
would have occurred on the third "day" of the first account.
Then God created "the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and all
wild beasts" (or "cattle"), which are elements of the fifth and sixth
"days"
in the first account. As He went along, creating things, God even brought
the things He created to Adam so he could name them. [Gen 2:19]
Finally, God brought forth Adam's wife, Eve, from Adam's own body, an
event
that would have occurred about the sixth "day" in the first account.
This last act set up an inevitable encounter (and conflict) between "the
sons of God" and "the sons of men."
***************************************************
The begin to the answer the Genesis controversy, one only has to ask the
question: How did the "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the earth," and
"fowls of the air" that came before man in the first account wind up
behind
Adam in the second account?
Then ask Peter what God was talking about. He'll tell you.
Yes, that is very interesting, and one of the most dramatic evidences of
the
non-literal nature of early Genesis texts is these two different creation
accounts. In style, structure and content, they are VERY different, a
fact
which is lost when the two are told in a homogeneous English translation.
They SOUND like a continuous text because we currently tell it in a
similar
english style.
But the fact of the chronoligical differences should lead us to one of two
conclusions: either they were meant to be read as strict literal
historical
narrative, in which case one or the other or both are incorrect, or that
they were NOT meant to be read that way, in which case they can BOTH be
correct.
Just to clarify, it's not both one way or both the other.
The first account is a general outline of the creation process over the eons
of time.
The second account is a prophetic narrative documenting the start of the
conflict between the "Sons of God" (i.e. the lineage which leads to Jesus
Christ) and the "sons of men" (i.e. the Gentiles)j. It is a sideways
insertion into the first account at the sixth creation "day."
The first account is a general outline of the creation of the earth.
The second account is a prophetically-written narrative of man's involvement
in the story.
So, it's not a matter of "true" or "false," or "read it this way or that
way," but we have to read each account in the mode in which it was written,
and according to the purpose that it serves.
Ike
--
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "VBM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism is entirely based on a literal interpretation: is this the correct one? |
19 Sep 2005 02:10:26 PM |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wt-dnRfkRczAnLLeRVn-jg@comcast.com...
"VBM" <v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com> wrote in message
news:BICXe.338$zQ3.0@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2sKdnRqZb93vb7PeRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
"VBM" <v.mcalister@nospam.ejgd.com> wrote in message
news:r1CXe.322$zQ3.114@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Why a literalist presumption?
Most YEC's here would agree that were it not for their presumption
that
the
Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood were meant to be read as
literal
historical narrative, the evidence from the natural world would be
compelling enough to conclude the universe and the earth were old,
and
that
God created over a long period of time. Said another way around, it
is
this
literalist presumption which overrides what they would otherwise
believe
regarding our past and God's method and timing of creation.
Pretty good article, but what the hell is a "YEC?"
A Young Earth Creationist
Submitted for your perusal:
****************************************************
From "The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in
Revelation"
by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. copyright 2005.
The first creation prophecy
In the first creation prophecy of Genesis [1:1-2:3], everything that
God
created evolved from one foundation (i.e. the waters) upwards, as laid
out
in simple terms derived from simple understanding.
The prophet presents this prophecy in terms of a seven-day week, where
each
"day" is actually just a measure of time on the sliding scale of time.
In
addition, the prophet wrote it from the viewpoint of someone standing
on
the
earth and looking outward.
In this account, God created the overarching form of the universe on
the
first "day."
Then God formed the earth on the second "day."
God established the plant kingdom on the third "day."
He then completed the form of the universe, bringing it into focus (as
seen
from the earth) on the fourth "day." (This is where conventional days
and
nights begin, establishing two layers of "days" and "weeks" within the
same
prophecy).
God created the creatures of the waters and the birds of the air on the
fifth "day."
He then created the more complex creatures that move on the face of the
earth-which ultimately included men and women-on the sixth "day."
After this, God sat back and rested, and let everything run its course.
Actually, God will sit back and relax, for everything is still running
its
course, and we are still only in the sixth day. The first creation
account
is an overall view of the creation from beginning to end, and God has
not
finished creating things [Rev 4:11].
Jesus even said that He and His Father are still hard at work, setting
up
one of the many arguments between Jesus and the Jews over affairs of
the
Sabbath Day. [Jn 5:17-18]
The important thing to notice about the first prophecy is that God in
no
way
separated the creation of man and woman from the creation of all the
other
things in the world, except by the established order.
There is a reason for this: The first prophecy of Genesis is a literal
account of the creation, and it deals with the establishment of the
natural
man and his natural world. Hence, the men and women spoken of in this
account are the children of the waters, i.e. the Gentiles.
The second creation prophecy
The second creation prophecy [Gen 2:4-2:25] chronicles the creation of
the
spiritual man, i.e. the children of the earth.
In this second account, God created Adam from the substance of the
earth
after God created the world, but before He created any other living
thing.
[Gen 2:4-7] This places the creation of Adam somewhere around the end
of
the
second "day" of the first account.
After God created Adam from the substance of the earth (rather than the
waters), He established a "garden" eastward in Eden, which would be the
Mesopotamian Valley from which civilization first sprang. [Gen 2:9]
This
would have occurred on the third "day" of the first account.
Then God created "the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and
all
wild beasts" (or "cattle"), which are elements of the fifth and sixth
"days"
in the first account. As He went along, creating things, God even
brought
the things He created to Adam so he could name them. [Gen 2:19]
Finally, God brought forth Adam's wife, Eve, from Adam's own body, an
event
that would have occurred about the sixth "day" in the first account.
This last act set up an inevitable encounter (and conflict) between
"the
sons of God" and "the sons of men."
***************************************************
The begin to the answer the Genesis controversy, one only has to ask
the
question: How did the "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the earth,"
and
"fowls of the air" that came before man in the first account wind up
behind
Adam in the second account?
Then ask Peter what God was talking about. He'll tell you.
Yes, that is very interesting, and one of the most dramatic evidences of
the
non-literal nature of early Genesis texts is these two different
creation
accounts. In style, structure and content, they are VERY different, a
fact
which is lost when the two are told in a homogeneous English
translation.
They SOUND like a continuous text because we currently tell it in a
similar
english style.
But the fact of the chronoligical differences should lead us to one of
two
conclusions: either they were meant to be read as strict literal
historical
narrative, in which case one or the other or both are incorrect, or that
they were NOT meant to be read that way, in which case they can BOTH be
correct.
Just to clarify, it's not both one way or both the other.
The first account is a general outline of the creation process over the
eons
of time.
The second account is a prophetic narrative documenting the start of the
conflict between the "Sons of God" (i.e. the lineage which leads to Jesus
Christ) and the "sons of men" (i.e. the Gentiles)j. It is a sideways
insertion into the first account at the sixth creation "day."
The first account is a general outline of the creation of the earth.
The second account is a prophetically-written narrative of man's
involvement
in the story.
So, it's not a matter of "true" or "false," or "read it this way or that
way," but we have to read each account in the mode in which it was
written,
and according to the purpose that it serves.
Yes, agreed, they are two different accounts written for two very different
purposes. The one thing they can bot BOTH be is literal historical
narrative. At least one, and I think both, are telling us true things about
the past using literary styles other than historical narrative.
Even regarding the first account, I am not sure we have to view it as
historically chronological at all. Instead, God could simply be using the
seven-day framework to tell us that God created all things and that all is
under His control, and that God considered it all "good". It tells about
the creation out of chaos, etc.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism is entirely based on a literal interpretation: is this the correct one? |
20 Sep 2005 01:49:26 PM |
|
|
The very foundations of the Christian and Hebrew religions are the Bibles.
Most followers believe they are the word of their God.
The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in
existence. Why would God not protect the originals? What are available are
copies of copies by unknown men of questionable veracity biased by, and
dependent on, their membership in the clergy. The originals rotted and
disappeared thousands of years ago. The Bibles were hand written and copied
more than a thousand years before the invention of the printing press.
And of course we not only do not know what was in the originals but they
were also written by errant biased men motivated to impress their flock.
There is no way of determining how much and what is fiction, fable, legend,
nonsensical babble and embellished history. This much we know. They were
written copied and edited by errant members of the clergy with strong
incentives to exaggerate and embellish their stories to strengthen control
of their members. They are replete with contradictions, impossible and
implausible stories and obvious fables.
Some silly implausible Bible stories.
The story of creation
A totally illogical Biblical story is the story of creation. It is obviously
pure fiction
Biblically, god created the world 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. Scientific
evidence shows the Universe, as we now know it, began almost 14 BILLION
years ago.
In the Bible, the Universe is a firmament and the Earth is a fixed (not to
mention flat) Planet and the Son, Moon and other planets revolve around the
earth. We now KNOW the Earth revolves around the Son and the Universe is
over 20 BILLION light years in diameter and is made up of trillions of Stars
and Planets of which our planetary system is a very miniscule and
unimportant part.
In the Bible the earth is created in the first day, before the Son, Moon and
Stars. Objective scientific evidence is that the Earth did not form until 10
BILLION YEARS after the beginning of the present Universe and after the
formation of the Son, and many other stars.
The Creation of the World
Genesis
In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was
without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a
mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters. God said, Let there
be light, and there was light; and God saw that the light was good, and he
separated light from darkness. He called the light day, and the darkness
night. So evening came, and morning came, the first day. God created light
before he created the Sun and the Moon!
The Son is known to have existed long before the Earth; therefore the earth
was not created before the Son.
God said, Let there be a vault between the waters, to separate water from
water. So God made the vault, and separated the water under the vault from
the water above it, and so it was; and God called the vault heaven. Evening
came, and morning came, a second day.
In Biblical times the stars and sky beyond the Earth, Son, and Moon was
Heaven.
God said, Let the waters under heaven be gathered into one place, so that
dry land may appear; and so it was. God called the dry land earth, and the
gathering of the waters he called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then
God said, Let the earth produce fresh growth, let there be on the earth
plants bearing seed, fruit-trees bearing fruit each with seed according to
its kind. So it was; the earth yielded fresh growth, plants bearing seed
according to their kind and trees bearing fruit each with seed according to
its king; and God saw that it was good. Evening came, and morning came, a
third day.
And this good and loving God created animals that eat other animals (and
man) and poisonous plants and snakes that kill!
God said, Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to separate day from
night, and let them serve as signs both for festivals and for seasons and
years. Let them also shine in the vault of heaven to give light on earth. So
it was; God made the two great lights, the greater to govern the day and the
lesser to govern the night; and with them he made the stars. God put these
lights in the vault of heaven to give light on earth, to govern day and
night, and to separate light from darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Evening came, and morning came, a fourth day.
Ancient man erroneously thought the stars beyond the Sun and Moon to be
Heaven.
The Moon was not considered a reflection from the light of the Sun but a
lesser light.
God, said, Let the waters teem with countless living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth across the vault of heaven. god then created the
great sea-monsters and all living creatures that move and swarm in the
waters, according to their kind, and every kind of bird; and God saw that it
was good. So he blessed them and said, be fruitful and increase, fill the
waters of the seas; and let the birds increase on land. Evening came, and
morning came, a fifth day.
And this all loving God created creatures of the Sea that kill and eat other
creatures including man.
God said, let the earth bring forth living creatures, according to their
kind: cattle, reptiles, and wild animals, all according to their kind. So it
was; God made wild animals, cattle, and all reptiles, each according to its
kind; and he saw that it was good. Then God said, Let us make man it our
image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea , the birds of heaven, the
cattle, all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the
earth. So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, be
fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in
the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the
earth. God also said, I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on
earth, and every tree bearing fruit which yields seed: they shall be yours
for food. All green plants I give for food to the wild animals, to all the
birds of heaven, and to all reptiles on earth, every living creature. So it
was; and God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. Evening came,
and morning came, a sixth day.
And God created animals that kill and eat other animals including man.
Thus heaven and earth were completed with all their mighty throng. On the
sixth day God completed all the work he had been doing, and on the seventh
day he ceased from all his work. God blessed the seventh day and made it
holy, because on that day he ceased from all the work he had set himself to
do and rested.
Why would a God that is not physical but spiritual, get tired and need rest?
If this creator is such a loving and caring guy, why does he permit totally
innocent children to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a
fully developed brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.?
Why are some born idiots and others with super intelligence?
Why does this loving and caring god create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes,
Volcanic Eruptions, Wars, cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and
serious body malfunctions that effect people indiscriminately regardless of
their conduct or religious beliefs? Why does he permit millions of both
young and old to starve to death?
These afflict humans indiscriminately - young and old, atheists and members
of all religious beliefs.
Why did this caring benevolent god create animals that need to eat other
animals to survive?
If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent god. The objective evidence is that, if there is a
god creator, he has no concern about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.
Adam and Eve
In the Bible, there are two different accounts of Adam and Eve's creation.
According to the Priestly (P) history of the 5th or 6th century BC (Genesis
1:1-2:4), God on the sixth day of Creation created all the living creatures
and, "in his own image," man both "male and female." God then blessed the
couple, told them to be "fruitful and multiply," and gave them dominion over
all other living things.
According to the lengthier Yahwist (J) narrative of the 10th century BC
(Genesis 2:5-7, 2:15-4:1, 4:25), God, or Yahweh, created Adam at a time when
the earth was still void, forming him from the earth's dust and breathing
"into his nostrils the breath of life." God then gave Adam the primeval
Garden of Eden to tend but, on penalty of death, commanded him not to eat of
the fruit of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Subsequently, so that
Adam would not be alone, God created other animals but, finding these
insufficient, put Adam to sleep, took from him a rib, and created a new
companion, Eve. The two were persons of innocence until Eve yielded to the
temptations of the evil serpent and Adam joined her in eating the forbidden
fruit, whereupon they both recognized their nakedness and donned fig leaves
as garments. Immediately, God recognized their transgression and proclaimed
their punishments-for the woman, pain in childbirth and subordination to
man, and, for the man, relegation to an accursed ground with which he must
toil and sweat for his subsistence. Adam died at the age of 930!
In later Christian theology, the concept of original sin (q.v.) took hold-a
sin in which human kind has been held captive since the fall of Adam and
Eve. The doctrine was based on Pauline Scripture but has not been accepted
by a number of Christian sects and interpreters. Why should BILLIONS of
innocent people be punished over hundreds of thousands of years for this
original sin?
This is both sadistic and ridiculous!
Jonah
As the story is related in the Book of Jonah, the prophet Jonah is called by
God to go to Nineveh (a great Assyrian city) and prophesy disaster because
of the city's wickedness. Jonah, in the story, feels about Nineveh as does
the author of the Book of Nahum-that the city must inevitably be destroyed
because of God's judgment against it. Thus Jonah does not want to prophesy,
because Nineveh might repent and thereby be saved. So he rushes down to
Joppa and takes passage in a ship that will carry him in the opposite
direction, thinking to escape God.
A storm of unprecedented severity strikes the ship, and it shows signs of
breaking up and foundering. Jonah confesses that it is his presence on board
that is causing the storm. At his request, he is thrown overboard, and the
storm subsides.
A "great fish," appointed by God, swallows Jonah, and he stays within the
fish's maw for three days and nights. He prays for deliverance and is
"vomited out" on dry land (ch. 2).
Totally implausible!
Sodom and Gomorrah
According to the Bible these cities and everyone in them, except Lot and his
family, were destroyed by fire and brimstone for their sinfulness. Lot's
wife was turned into a pillar of salt for disobeying God's command to not
look back at her city of birth being destroyed.
There is no way that everyone in two cities could so sinful, especially
children, to deserve destruction by fire and brimstone.
Sodom and Gomorrah constituted, along with the cities of Admah, Zeboiim, and
Zoar (Bela), the five biblical "cities of the plain." Destroyed by"brimstone
and fire" because of their wickedness (Genesis 19:24).
Sodom and Gomorrah probably were devastated about 1900 BC by an earthquake
in the Dead Sea area of the Great Rift Valley, an extensive rift extending
from the Jordan River valley in Israel to the Zambezi River system in East
Africa. When the catastrophic destruction occurred, the petroleum and gases
existing in the area probably contributed to the imagery of "brimstone and
fire"
Cruel, inhumane and pure nonsense nonsense.
The Tower of Babel
Genesis 11.1 - 11.9
God became concerned that the Tower being built would reach his heaven.
He confounded the builders by giving them different languages so they could
no longer communicate with each other to continue the construction.
Why would this be of any concern to an all powerful God creator and wouldn't
this God creator realize that no tower could reach his spiritual heaven?
Noah and the Ark
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous biblical
tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It is an
impossible story.
1. The largest boat ever built to this day could not even come CLOSE to
housing Noah, his sons, wives and two of every type of animal on earth. And
this was a boat built of wood many thousands of years ago. There are 1.7
million KNOWN species of animals on this planet. This story is patently
impossible, using only materials and tools available to Noah, to build an
arch large enough to hold all these creatures, together with suitable
environments for each of them to live in, keeping them all separated so they
don't eat or kill each other.
And then provide room and an environment for many hundreds of millions of
known species of insects, plants, molds etc. on this planet?
2. Where did they house all of the new born during this ten month
escapade?
3. In addition, the ship would have to carry a TEN MONTHS supply of food
and fresh water for the people and thousands of animals for them to survive.
What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone
extinct. How did they dispose of the thousands of tons of feces? It must
have been one stinking ship!
4. Now according to the Bible the earth was flooded for ten months. This
would kill off all the vegetation. What did the animals eat for an
additional year or more after the flood subsided?
5. Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove
returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out
again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive
the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't
germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. 8:8-11.
6. And according to this myth, Noah was also over 600 years old!
This is a grossly implausible tale that ranks as a greater tale than Santa
Claus, The Wizard of Oz, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy!
Genesis 6:6
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was
filled with pain.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face
of the earth: men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and
birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."
9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he
walked with God.
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family,
because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven
[a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every
kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind
of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the
earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days
and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living
creature I have made."
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7
And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to
escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of
birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female,
came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after
the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the
second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and
the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth
forty days and forty nights.
13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with
his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with
them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to
their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its
kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs
of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and
entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every
living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters
increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and
increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the
water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under
the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the
mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [, 21 Every living thing that
moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the
creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry
land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing
on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures
that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the
earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 7:6 (New International Version)
6 Noah was "six hundred" years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.
7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to
escape the waters of the flood
Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that
were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters
receded.
3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and
fifty days the water had gone down,
4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on
the mountains of Ararat.
5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day
of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible
Genesis 9 God's Covenant With Noah
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number and fill the earth.
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and
all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground,
and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you
the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand
an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an
accounting for the life of his fellow man.
Before man learned how to create a fire, he had no choice but to eat raw
meat!
Samson
Hebrew Shimshon, Israelite hero portrayed in an epic narrative in the Old
Testament (Judg. 13-16). He was a Nazirite (q.v.) and a legendary warrior
whose incredible exploits hint at the weight of Philistine pressure on
Israel during much of the early, tribal period of Israel in Canaan
(1200-1000).
Samson was claimed to possess extraordinary physical strength, and the moral
of his saga relates the disastrous loss of his power to the violation of his
Nazirite vow. Credited with remarkable exploits-e.g., the slaying of a lion
and moving the gates of Gaza-he first broke his religious promises by
feasting with a woman from the neighboring town of Timnah, who was also a
Philistine, one of Israel's mortal enemies. Other remarkable deeds follow;
e.g., his decimating the Philistines in a private war. On another occasion
he repulsed their assault on him at Gaza, where he had gone to visit a
harlot. He finally fell victim to his foes through love of Delilah, a woman
of the valley of Sorek, who beguiled him into revealing the secret of his
strength: his long Nazirite hair. As he slept, Delilah had his hair cut and
betrayed him. He was captured, blinded, and enslaved by the Philistines, but
in the end he was granted his revenge; through the return of his old
strength, he supposedly demolished the great Philistine temple of the god
Dagon, at Gaza, destroying his captors and himself (Judg.16:4-30).
God created a three level Universe - Heaven above, a flat World resting on
water. Genesis 1:6-10; 7:11; 8:2; 11:11-9; 19:24; 28:12-13; Exodus 20:4;
Numbers 16:30-33; Deuteronomy 33:17.
God created the Sun and the Moon on the fourth day but created light on the
first day! Genesis1:1-9; 14-19
It is claimed that the Eve, first woman, was created from one of Adam's
ribs.
Genesis 3:1-5 Men and women have the same number of ribs on each side of
their body?
The Bibles claim that a talking snake talked Eve into eating the forbidden
fruit.
The Bibles claim that Adam lived 930 tears, Seth 912 years, Enosh 905 years,
Kenan910 years, Mahalael 895 years, Jared 962 years, Methuselah 969 years;
Lamech 777 years, and Noah 950 years. Genesis 5:-31; 9:29
God commanded that every baby boy at age of eight days be circumcised.
At that time sterilization (of knives) was unknown and many died of
infection for which they new no cure. Why did this almighty and all caring
God create baby boys with foreskins on their penis that he then required to
be painfully and dangerously removed?
This all caring and loving God sent ten horrible plagues upon the Egyptians
Exodus 7:14-12:32 and in his loving generosity gave Israel the land of the
Canaanites and the Israelites slaughtered every person of seven nations.
Twenty one million, men women and innocent children, according to the Bible.
Exodus 12:1-2
God in the Bibles classifies bats as birds when anyone with an elementary
knowledge of biology knows that bats are flying MAMMALS!
Letiviticus11:13, 19
This God can't control his temper resulting in killing thousands of people.
Numbers 11:31-35; 25:1-9
He and Moses ordered the Israelites to kill all the male and Female
Medianites who had ever had sex but to spare the young women who were
virgins and keep them for themselves to enjoy. Numbers 31:14-1
Jeremiah:16:1: The word of the LORD came also unto me, saying,
2: Thou shall not take thee a wife, neither shall thou have sons or
daughters in this place.
3: For thus saith the LORD concerning the sons and concerning the daughters
that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers that bare them,
and concerning their fathers that begat them in this land;
4: They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither
shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth:
and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcasses
shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
5: For thus saith the LORD, Enter not into the house of mourning, neither go
to lament nor bemoan them: for I have taken away my peace from this people,
saith the LORD, even loving kindness and mercies.
======================================================
The earth is the oldest object in the universe (Genesis 1:1), snakes can
talk (Genesis 3:1-5), and Man had dominion over the dinosaurs (Genesis 1:26,
28)."
Duh!
======================================================
This is just a sampling of ridiculous Bible tales. The Bibles are obviously
a mixture of fiction, fables, folklore an pure nonsense.
And these Bibles were dictated by God??? Then this God must be a demented
idiot.
begin 666 clip_image001.gif
M1TE&.#EA- (%`'<`,2'^&E-O9G1W87)E.B!-:6-R;W-O9G0@3V9F:6-E`"'Y
M! $`````+ $``0`R`@,`@0```(" @-34U $"`P(\C(^IR^T/HYRTVHNSWKS[
M#X;B2):!@*;JRK;N"\?R3-?VC>?ZSO?^#PP*A\2B\8A,*I?,IO,)C4JGU&@!
"`#L`
`
end
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore \Tocis\ Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism is entirely based on a literal interpretation: is this the correct one? |
19 Sep 2005 09:24:36 PM |
|
|
VBM wrote:
Why a literalist presumption?
Because if you want a dusty old book to do all your thinking for you then
you need that book to be literally true - or else you'd still have to
think.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
.
|
|
|
| User: "VBM" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism is entirely based on a literal interpretation: is this the correct one? |
19 Sep 2005 11:38:25 PM |
|
|
"Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig" <MAILTOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:dgnrt3$q31$3@online.de...
VBM wrote:
Why a literalist presumption?
Because if you want a dusty old book to do all your thinking for you then
you need that book to be literally true - or else you'd still have to
think.
True, God wants us to think, but your point makes the assumption that a true
story told in strict literal narrative is always easier to grasp than one
told in a figurative or non-literal style. Very often this can be true, but
there are a couple of factors to consider.
First, for most of human history, stories about the past were told using a
variety of non-literal literary styles. So, for most people, they would
expect to hear a story told about true events in the past in a non-literal
fashion, and a figurative telling was as easy to understand as a literal
one. So, it was not really any more thinking involved for them.
Second, the figurative telling did not make it any less true, since usually
the important points being conveyed about the true past had very little to
do with factual historical accuracy.
Nowadays, in the modern West at least, we have come to value stories about
the past only to the extent they are accurate in historical detail. The
less historically literal, the less valuable, or even the less TRUE. This
is a relatively modern way of thinking, since stories were told about the
past for thousands of years without the slightest pretense at strict
historical narrative before the idea of "modern" history writing came along
with herodotus (and even he had no problem with a degree of figurative and
non-literal stylings). But now, God expects us to consider the time and
place of the original telling and then writing of these stories when we seek
to understand their meaning. We have that ability since we have the benefit
of historical information, and so, yes, God expects us to think about that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
