Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 85159 | ||
Myth, Genesis, Paul. Hello Kat. Please understand that, when I say myth I don't mean "falsehood" or "fairytale". God's myth is as different from the myths of other cultures, as the authority of Biblical history is different from reading human historians. I believe the opening chapters of Genesis are authoritative --- what the meaning of the text is true, but not to be taken literally. It is pretty hard to know what Paul meant, when we only have his words. Someday, we'll be able to ask him face to face. If Paul understood the story of Adam and Eve as mythic, he would still write the same passage --- just as I would say "with Adam and Eve, humanity entered into sin." Since I allow this story to shape my entire view of human nature, and humanity's relationship with God, I speak the language of the myth. I don't need to double-think about it --- I embrace the story as the truth about people. When Paul says, "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me..." (Galatians 2:20) he is not saying that Paul has been crucified --- yet it is true that he has "died to himself." So we accept his language as a powerful metaphor. But we don't fear that people we say that Christ's crucifixion is a metaphor, do we? So just because one part of a passage is literal doesn't mean the other part is. The same with the passages you quoted. I would further add that, until the last few hundred years, people blended mythic thinking and analytic thinking much more fluidly. I think our concern with literal reading has only been so intense since the "Enlightenment" advanced empiricism as the only way of knowing truth. So, in a way, taking the early accounts of Genesis literally is adopting the enlightenment's criteria for truth. I don't mean to cloud the issue. It's just that I find taking the opening passages of Genesis literally clouds the issues for many people -- and we spend our time talking about DNA and incest and theories that can't be proven. I find it clearer to say: "I won't trouble with those controversies -- I will diligently seek what the text says about God's plan for us." Other people responding to my post have suggested that I must be an evolutionist. I don't really know either way --- but I do know it is complicated. The universe does seem to be very old --- and I can either react to that by saying "No, that's not what Genesis says." --- or I can say "Wow, IF that's true, then God's creative power is so fantastic!" --and get on with the gospel. In University, a Christian students group set up a debate about creation and evolution. As convincing as either side was, the impression I left with was, "both sides are missing the point." I would put that kind of debate in the "how many angles on the head of a pin" category. I left wondering how many could have been reached with the gospel -- even using the same passages. If Christian's can't agree on how the passage should be read scientifically (6 days, metaphorical days, mythic, etc) then the scientific reading doesn't make a great evangelistic tool. I think the different streams of Christians do, however, agree on the inspiration, importance, and meaning of the passages. Embrace the meaning. |
||||||
2 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | horsecd | 85167 | ||
Point One: Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the universe, 90 percent point to an age far less than billions of years. For details, search the AnswersInGenesis.org website. Point Two: Luke 3:23-38 traces Jesus' geneology back to Adam. Luke takes Adam to be a real human and Genesis as history, not a fictional 'good moral' story. The only reason to doubt that all of Genesis is real, literal history is because some people state that the fossil record indicates vast ages of evolution instead of evidence for the Flood in Noah's time. But think about it, the fossil record shows death, violence, disease, carnivorous behavior, and thorns. As a compromise, some people say that this all came before the end of day 6 of creation, but that means God called death and suffering 'very good!' Also, the Bible teaches that sin caused death for man and animal alike. Death before sin brings the salvation message into doubt. Genesis 2:17 states that physical death was the punishment for sin. 1 Corinthians 15:26 says, "The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death..." Adam sinned and the punishment was death, so Jesus took that punishment (death) for sin to free us. However, if death came before sin and was not the punishment for sin, Jesus' death on the cross was meaningless and saved no one. Genesis is the very foundation of the Gospel message and contains the first promises for a Savior. Caring that it is a historical and scientifically accurate book is not 'missing the point' or a side issue to the Gospel. Also, Genesis is not 'better as metaphorical than as historical.' Would Americans be better off if the Revolutionary War was metaphorical and not historical? After all, it's a rousing tale which we can get a lot of meaning out of! Point Thee: A simple reading of the Bible shows that the writers believed in a young universe, that the Bible came from God, and that God cannot lie. The only reason we doubt this is because some humans state that it is wrong. The question now becomes, "who's word do you believe?" Do you believe God, who was there at creation, who knows everything, who cannot lie, and who's Word is absolutely reliable? Or do you believe man, who didn't see the origin of the universe, who doesn't know everything, who's theories frequently change, who rarely agrees on anything, who is sinful, who will lie if it serves his purpose (or even unintentionally), who's methods are fallible, and who may have wrong assumptions? The answer should be obvious... |
||||||