Message 81 of 83 (524549)
09-17-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by greyseal
09-07-2009 1:51 AM
Re: Faith and Literalism
|ah, so you weren't there either.|
then we'll have to use deductive reasoning - and fashion up a theory that is explained by the facts.
I have no objection to that. I really like science. I also like the word of God (I take the Bible as God's word).
I don't know. I don't claim to know.
Oh now, you DO claim to know based on what you've been taught from the bible, otherwise why are you arguing for the position you are?
If you HAVEN'T looked at the facts and/or are selectively ignoring them, then shame on you.
I don't know the exhaustive details of how life arose upon this earth. I have an understanding that God is ultimately reponsible. And the Bible tells me that it is by faith that I know this.
"By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear" (Hebrews 11:3)
The information provided me that instills faith is economical and apparently limited.
And I think that it is layed out for us in a sequence to mostly emphasize the uniqueness of man in this creation. The animals are traced as to their arrival not in an exhaustive way. But the review seems to me to highlight two matters,IMO, levels of consciousness and the development of the face.
I mean this, the grass has a low level of consciousness as compared to man. The fish are mentioned on the fifth day. These creatures have a higher level of consciousness than the grass. We are ascending up the scale in level of consciousness.
We are told next of the fowl life on the fifth day. I think the point is the point is in consciousness we are ascending higher. The birds being able to transcend the salty water may be a point. They can freely soar above the environment of the salty sea. And their consciousness is higher than both the plant life and the fish life.
Then on the sixth day we are told of the higher lives which not only transcend but can accomplish something on the earth. The lion is used elsewhere in Scripture to represent Judah, a tribe that can accomplish many significant things. First Samuel 6:7,21a tells abnout two kine whch were used to carry the cart with the ark.
Both the beasts and the cattle of the sixth day can accomplish something on this earth. Their consciousness is higher than the fish, even higher than the bird, and they can do something on this earth.
I am using the Bible to interpret the Bible. I believe that Holy Spirit is laying out the sequence of living creatures to portray the ascendency of consciousness, responsiblity, and expression, We are approaching the highest life, human beings. We are doing so in such a way so that man can look down from the peak of this pennacle and have a certain self consciousness about himself. He is among the other created lives yet he also stands apart from them in a unique way.
I claim to have a belief. I have a faith that God has revealed something to us about creation.
so, you basically believe what somebody else has told you at face value.
This would be an over simplification. Over a period of time after I had met Jesus Christ, a kind of approvedness and trustworthiness was built up in my mind concerning the integrity of Jesus. It was eventual that I decided that what He took seriously in the rest of the Bible I should likewise take seriously.
Now, I also have respect for other people, including scientists. But the approvedness of Jesus for me is more impressive. I am at the point where I think His integrity is beyond questioning.
This decision came gradually. I did not start reading Genesis when I became a Christian. I started with the Gospels and gradually opened up my mind to the rest of the Bible when I observed Christ's attitude towards the rest of Scripture.
Granny said he/she had facts that proved what I am told there in Genesis is fantasy. I am not persuaded that Granny can say that with total and complete confidence.
Maybe if you looked at the facts, you'd disagree. I don't know how old you are, I don't know if you're being homeschooled by somebody
I will be 60 years old in another month. I have raised two children who are now in thier lower thirties. Both are college degreed.
who doesn't know the facts or whether you're being sent to a school that is ignoring the facts.
I am not ignoring the facts that present day biological theory is that birds are the descendents of dinosaurs.
As a family we subscribed to Discovery Magazine. And contrary to what you think I am really quite fascinated with scientific advancement, I especially keep reasonably abreast of cosmology from a layman's perspective.
1.) I just don't know if I can say a known fact proves anything in Genesis not true. I ahve to ask myself certain questions about the text. I ask about what it says in the original language. I ask about what it does not say.
I consider the purpose behind what is being conveyed. The immediate issue that Granny raises is that birds were alive only after land walking animals. So because we KNOW this the fifth day review of God creating birds preceeding the land creatures on the sixth day must therefore be an error.
I am not sure that the intent of the writing can be merit that criticism.
2.) I am not sure that the seer or prophet is relating to things to us as he saw them. In which case the visions were economical and many details were not made known to him.
For sequence of visions of the creatures and their days may not have the purpose of revealing their chronological appearance on the earth. Rather the sequence may emphasize their ascending consciousness as they approach the main subject of the creation story, the creation of man in God's image.
At this time I do not have the confidence to insist that birds being reviewed on day five preceeding cattle being reviewed on day sixth represents a scientific error.
I further don't know that we have more than a educated guess that birds could only exist after land dwelling life forms could. I am Okay with acknowledging that the present consenus interpretation of fossils leads to that belief.
I don't know that that fossil record interpretation renders Genesus 1:20-25 wrong.
If you are, I feel sorry for you.
The rest of my paragraph which you so kindly cut tried to give you a viewpoint on why we believe (in the non-theistic use of the word) what we believe - the theory explains all the facts. Please read it if you haven't.
Neither of us may ever know for sure.
Well now you went and pulled out Last Thursday-ism. As I said before, once you pull out that canard, then it's no longer scientific, it's philosophical. This being the "social and religious issues" forum, that's probably fair - but if you want to talk about Granny Magda's facts, it's a different ballgame, surely?
You say I am out of place. But this is the Bible Study forum. So maybe Granny is out of place.
The underlying question here is "What Does the Bible Really Mean?"
I think I am persuing that question. I do not think I have all the answers. But it is a legitimate questions - Does Genesis intend to present a exhaustive scientific discreption of God created everything ?
At present I don't think Genesis is to be taken as an exhaustive scientific discriptyion of how God created everything. The first things seen are in a state of ruin and void, suggesting that something was there in a chaotic state. Either entropy or catastraphy is implied which would also imply the passage of more time prior to the six days of review there with their focus on Man's world.
At least some quarters of science today envision something like killer comets, killer gas, killer asteriods, massive volcanic desterbance wreaking havoc on some previous earth epoch. This really seems skating closer to Genesis 1:1,2 in a number of English translations:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep" (RcV, Gen 1:1,1)
I see conceivable room there for epochs of time preceeding Adam's world.
Now concerning the Evolution matter. Let me say one thing before I close.
The word had no problem in telling us that Eve was taken out of Adam as a rib and built into a female human being. If Adam had come out of a primate, for example, an ape of some kind ( the artist usually draw something that at least looks to me like an ape ), I don't see why the revelator would not have written that God took a man out of a ape and called his name Adam.
As it stands Adam the first man came out of the dust. So I have a question mark on this matter of an ape one day or gradually over many millions of days producing a human being.
It very well could have said "And God took the creature out of the ape and formed him into a man". It didn't. So I remain suspicious about the ape ancestor theory.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 58 by greyseal, posted 09-07-2009 1:51 AM|| ||greyseal has responded|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 83 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2009 7:42 AM|| ||jaywill has not yet responded|