Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19509 | ||
Well, yes, I did mean "parable" - defined in my favorite dictionary (Webster's New International, 2 ed. 1944) as "a comparison; similitude; specif. a short, fictitious narrative of a possible event in life or nature, from which a moral or spiritual truth is drawn; as, the parables of Christ". Possible - God might have done it the way Genesis 1 says or he might have done it another way; but he did it. Spriritual truth - God created the heavens and the earth; the specific mechanism is unrelated to the spiritual truth of who came first and who created what. Perhaps it would help if I explained my approach to the Bible. For reasons that are too lengthy to detail here, I accept without reservation that the Bible is the inspired word of God. (I once took a entire 20-minute sermon - as a layman - explaining the reasons for my belief.) When studying the Bible (trying to understand what is history, what is a parable, what is poetic, what is imagery, what is metaphor - it can't all be taken literally) I work backwards from my faith in Jesus. Faith makes no sense if Jesus lied about himself or his ministry, so his words must be true. The NT writers were inspired by God to testify to Jesus and his ministry - the only contemporaneous witness we have - so what they said about him must be true. What he and they said about scripture must be true (including 2 Timothy 3:15-18). Jesus referred to Adam and Eve (and Noah, and Jonah, etc.) so they must have existed in history. So too with David, and Rahab and several prophets and a host of others. His words and the NT writers' words and the OT writers' words would be false if nearly every event from Adam and Eve forward was not historically true. But I don't believe there are any instances where anything in the Bible - any words of Jesus, any matter of faith, any theological principle - depends upon the historical accuracy of Genesis 1. If God were to reveal to us today that Genesis 1 really was a parable, nothing would change. It would still be a fallen world, God's covenants with Abraham and his descendants would still have been made, God's intraction with the Israelites would be the same, the law would still have been given, the messianic prophecies would still stand, Jesus would still fulfill them, and he would still be Savior and Lord of all. Jesus taught in parables; he wasn't a liar and he didn't disobey his father, so we must accept that God sometimes uses fiction to teach spiritual truths (see the dictinary defintion above). If Genesis 1 is a parable, it doesn't negate scripture or make God a liar. And if it isn't, then a very large body of credible scientific evidence is wrong. That's Ok too. My faith is unshaken either way. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
2 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19553 | ||
Steve: Webster's definition of parable does not fit your use of it. In the Bible, all the parables meet the following conditions: 1. It is clearly identified as such in Scripture as a STORY. 2. The narrator of the parable utilizes everyday events to illustrate Scriptural truths. 3. The MEANING of the parable is clear from its context. 4. As you stated above, it is an extended, overt comparison between one thing and another. Therefore, Genesis 2 does not fit the characteristics of a parable at all. You accuse the modernists of "de-mythologizing" Scripture, but how are you not committing the same error here? The only difference is a matter of degree, not of kind. "God might have done it that way" is not an acceptable answer. God might have hatched the earth out of an egg. God might have created human beings out of tree sap. The point is that the Bible clearly explains in no uncertain terms how both events occurred. It does not suggest that it was some poetic way of describing an underlying reality. It is presented as an event in history. By the way, I would encourage you to read a book entitled "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells of the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (http://www.discovery.org/crsc) for a clear revelation of how much "credible scientific evidence" there is for the notion of common descent. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19567 | ||
Hi, Joel; In my notes, I have used "parable" as it is defined in the dictionary. The word used in that way conveys my meaning when I say that I see Genesis 1 (not 2) as a parable. I assume your definition, like mine, comes from a non-inspired source, so I don't see that either is any more authoritative than the other. The difference between my reading of Genesis 1 and the "de-mythologizing" of the Bible by Bultmann and his followers is profound. Bultmann and his crowd denied all supernatural intervention and claimed that biblical instances of the surpernatural were myths that could be disposed of. Since I proposed an evolutionary process specifically directed by God and harnessed to his will, there's really no similarity. Can't we just agree to disagree? I'm sure we have much more in common than not. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
4 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19581 | ||
Steve: Then we come back to Tim's earlier question: why did God need to be involved at all? What evidence is there of a God-directed program? Really...go find the book I mentioned. Wells is not some hick who thought he should write a book. He is a professor at UC-Berkeley. You seem scientifically-minded, so this book should be right up your alley. --Joe! |
||||||