Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 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! |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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! |
||||||