Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 32169 | ||
Greetings Steve! I agree that the lenght of time of creation is not all that significant. Other than the fact Genesis says that the "evening and the morning were the first day, ect...." So, a natural reading would be 7 days. However, the usual approach is to first deny that Genesis is real history, then to deny that Adam and Eve were real people, then to promote evolution. Evolution simply isn't compatible with the doctrines of the Bible. Obviously, Genesis doesn't tell us every detail of creation. I mean, which cell did God cause to split first! :-) But, it is a huge jump to go from that fact to saying that nothing in the creation account is historical. No history or biography gives us every detail. I sat under a philosophy professor in college who believed in Theistic evolution. We had a great debate one day, but when it came right down to it, he was forced to admit that he did not believe that Adam and Eve were real people. He believed that they were simply symbols of God's creative act, which was accomplished through evolution. It is interesting to note that this same professor is part of the openness of God movement and denies just about everything the Bible says about God. Well, I've got to get back to bed so I can go to work! I'll chat with you later Steve! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32178 | ||
Hi, Tim; Hope you got your beauty rest. ;-) Sunday's a busy day, I know. I think the difference is in the method, the reasoning backwards. If one built one's entire worldview and theology on a literal reading of Genesis 1 and worked forward to belief in Jesus, any doubts about that interpretation could bring the whole edifice down. But I've said before that I believe in the Bible because I believe in Jesus, not the other way around. As I work my way back in time from Jesus' earthly ministry, I eventually encounter the historical Adam and Eve. With them I also encounter the beginning of human history, the first eyewitnesses to God's actions, the introduction of sin into a perfect world, the first foreshadowing of Jesus, the introduction of Satan, and the first pronouncement of his ultimate fate. These things cannot be denied. As I continue backwards from there, the next significant thing I encounter is "In the begining, God". I can't find any theological importance in the duration or manner of creation, so I don't see any reason to assume scientific rigor in the Bible's description. You may be interested to know that for most of my Christian life, I doubted the historicity of Adam and Eve. I was perfectly content with the notion that Jesus simply built on his Father's parable when he referred to them in his discussion of marriage. But I evenrually realized that I could not get around Paul's contrasting of Jesus to Adam. If Adam didn't really exist, that part of Paul's theology would simply be wrong. Since I believe beyond doubt that God inspired Paul's theology, it couldn't be wrong. So Adam must have existed. This proves I am teachable. ;-) And plaase note that I am not insisting on my reading of Genesis 1. As in the recent "Judas in hell" debate, I think there is room for differing views without doing harm to any aspect of Christian theology or the authority of Scripture. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who fervently hopes God agrees that the renewing and restorative power of the Sabbath can be accomplished through watching football playoff games. |
||||||
3 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 32243 | ||
Greetings Steve! Well, we've got you back to Gen. 2, sometime in the future you might get to Gen. 1! :-) Football! Amen! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||