Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
58 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, nwr, PaulK (4 members, 54 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,160 Year: 12,908/23,288 Month: 633/1,527 Week: 72/240 Day: 0/35 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Contradictions: Hint that Genesis 1 and 2 are Allegorical
manwhonu2little
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 100 (39433)
05-08-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by lpetrich
05-04-2003 9:34 AM


Genesis & Time
Have you read Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder? He proposes a method whereby scientific estimates of a 20 Billion year old universe, and the 6-day (24 hours, that is, "days" as men think of them) can BOTH be correct measurements of the TIME required for Creation. Thus, Genesis 1 & 2 are reconciled by considering Genesis 1 to be more general (universal focus) and Genesis 2 to be a more specific (global viewpoint -- i.e. closer to man).

I'm not saying I agree with the 20 Billion years, because I think that age requires too many unproven assumptions (pertaining to "red shift" and other cosmological hypotheses), but I do agree with the reasoning that flows from the ideas of Einstein and Hawking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by lpetrich, posted 05-04-2003 9:34 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Karl, posted 05-09-2003 5:44 AM manwhonu2little has responded

  
manwhonu2little
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 100 (39513)
05-09-2003 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Karl
05-09-2003 5:44 AM


Re: Genesis & Time
Actually, it didn't feel like twisting at all to me. What seemed like twisting has been to take away authorship of the entirety of Genesis from Moses with extremely little to no proof that such was the case.

Even if it can be demonstrated that Moses did not author all of Genesis, how is it proven he did not have complete editorial control over all of the material presented? Why would he allow "conflicting" accounts to be recorded for all future generations?

So far as "adding" material at some later date: were not our ancestors deeply religious, attributing great mystical significance to holy scriptures? If anyone dared add anything, would they not have feared eternal retribution from the Being honored in those writings? And if not eternal, what about societal injunctions of death to any who would act in such a blasphemous manner? And should someone who had no fear of that Being succeed in temporarily tampering with any of the words, would not others decry the "new" version, and "restore" the writings to their original meanings?

So I have trouble accepting scholarship which ignores the influence of a society's culture (its beliefs and practices) and the underlying ego of human authorship (which would preclude any single author from setting forth contradictory information).

I must admit that I have not properly considered the effects of an entire group of intellectual elite in a society coming along and "re-writing" (or perhaps "re-interpreting" is a more accurate term) portions of historical writings. But as they say, history is written by the victor in any conflict.

Similarly, I must admit that translations suffer. One language simply cannot perfectly capture the nuances of another language, and I doubt any of us knows the nuances of Anciet Hebrew, Chaldean or even Greek.

In summary, I've never felt comfortable with the idea that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 could be explained by different authorship. And for the reasons I discussed above, I've not embraced the idea that either account is mythical or allegorical.

What I find truly astounding is the notion that after several thousand years, the words contained in Genesis 1 can still provoke intelligent -scientific- debate. This flies in the face of everything I consider reasonable, since science has only made major strides since the Renaissance. The accounts of creation given by other major world religions have been completely debunked by science. Only Judasim, Christianity and Islam remain, by virtue of the robust (if not detailed) account given in Genesis.

Question: Does the twisting you experience when reading Schroeder's ideas extend so far as to critique him/them? Or do you accept that what he proposes -might- be valid?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Karl, posted 05-09-2003 5:44 AM Karl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Karl, posted 05-09-2003 11:16 AM manwhonu2little has responded
 Message 22 by lpetrich, posted 05-10-2003 3:47 PM manwhonu2little has not yet responded
 Message 23 by lpetrich, posted 05-10-2003 4:08 PM manwhonu2little has not yet responded

  
manwhonu2little
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 100 (39637)
05-10-2003 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Karl
05-09-2003 11:16 AM


Re: Genesis & Time
Karl, I like your answer, although Ipetrich's provided some fun reading.

Thanks for your thoughts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Karl, posted 05-09-2003 11:16 AM Karl has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020