Take for instance the parable of the mustard seed. (Matthew 13:31-32) Jesus refers to the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds, this we now know not to be true. A simple side by side comparison of a mustard seed with an orchid seed shows that an orchid seed is much smaller. If Jesus had referred to an orchid seed, no one would have any idea what he was talking about. In the same way, if the Holy Spirit had inspired the writer of Genesis within the context of a perfect knowledge of the Earth's creation, it would exceed their understanding. How much more would it exceed their understanding if The Holy spirit referred to the creation of the universe in terms of the Big Bang, and evolutionary biology? I’m certain that if God fully revealed every detail of his creation to anyone living today that it would most certainly baffle them. Your views on origins say more of what you believe about the Bible rather than what you believe about God Frank Goforth.
However, what is really interesting is that this the idea of a nonliteralist interpretation of Genesis is not an old idea at all; for the first 17 Christian centuries the traditional view was that Genesis 1 did not teach solar days, one should be able to make room for that idea todayeven though it is an old-fashioned idea. (Herald of Holiness) The wave of biblical literalism that is so prevalent in society stems from the Protestant reformation. It was during that time that a new stress on interpreting the bible exactly as it is written was established. A later result was the rejection of Darwin and his followers. This is partially because of the Huxley vs. Wilbur Force debates, and partially because of the theological teachings coming from the Princeton Theological Seminary. This view has become further and further entrenched in the minds of society by people that view evolution as a means of naturalism to creep in to society, and creationism was touted to be the ultimate response to this lie. Ironically, the evolutionary creationist enjoys a more historically accurate context in which to view scripture than their opponents do.
Furthermore, knowing the exact details about how God created the universe is unimportant. Scientific creationists get so caught up in trying to prove that their version of the creation account is correct that they miss the central meaning behind it. The ancient Hebrews believed that the purpose of Genesis 1 was not to be a scientific textbook showing how the Earth was created, but was meant to reveal the foundational spiritual truths that God is the Creator, the creation is very good, all humanity is created in the Image of God, and human sin is utterly real and utterly significant. (Lamoureux, D) God is in fact the creator of the universe, whether he created it with divine intervention or through slow and ordinary means is unimportant.
The Exodus event is the central event of the entire Old Testament; all other passages in the Old Testament are secondary to that fact. It’s through the Exodus event that God fulfilled his promise to Abraham and brought his people from nothingness, to freedom in their own land. This shows God’s complete dominance over any and every god of Egypt. Each of the plagues was a specific challenge to their whole religious structure. For example: Moses turning the Nile river into blood. The Nile was believed to be the gods’ principle gift to the Egyptians. By challenging this, Moses showed his God’s superiority. The Genesis account is written to show that any and everything that was and had been could be attributed to other gods, was in fact made by the God of the Jews. So through God’s redeeming power he proves his ability to create. It is in this way that this doctrine of redemption becomes the affirmation for the doctrine of creation.
The Creation account exhibits brilliant parallelism that is shared by much of Hebrew poetry. It seems logical that instead of God directly telling the author what to write, the author meditated on God’s creation and the Holy Spirit spoke to the author in a vision. The days written in the creation account are therefore not literal days, but a topical framework that explains creation in metaphorical terms. This is not a new point of view, this view has a history that traces back to the father Augustine, and currently enjoys the support of many theologians of strong evangelical persuasion. (Wright, R)
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
™ Version 4.2