Author Topic: Literal Genesis - Why?  (Read 3929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Literal Genesis - Why?
« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2010, 03:15:54 AM »
C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 68-71:

"Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say 'I' and 'me,' which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments............ "
First Genesis is just an allegory, now the "allegory" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been disgarded. Slippery, slippery slope.

You realize the "slippery slope argument" is nearly always a fallacy?

It may be a logical fallacy, but in real life some logical fallacies are true. The possibility of a slippery slope is real. What will keep this in check is some form of historical consistency.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2010, 03:17:44 AM by jnorm888 »
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline jnorm888

  • Jnorm
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Icon and Cross (international space station)
    • Ancient Christian Defender
Re: Literal Genesis - Why?
« Reply #46 on: December 18, 2010, 03:24:41 AM »
are you suggesting that Christ is available independently of the Church, the Book, and the servants?

Not independently of the message of the Book - though I suppose even then we could get into a discussion of the well-known fact of Moslems who become Christians initially because God meets them in a dream or vision. Presumably, such would not consider reading the Book or or attending a church, and God can (and does) find exceptional means. However, discussion of exceptional events is probably not what you are asking me about.

No - there is a big difference between saying the Bible is the final and sufficient authority, given to us by God, for faith and practice, and saying that its first eleven chapters must be taken literally. Whether Gen. 1-11 is historical or not, the soteriology of the Bible sets before us the way of salvation. That, all Evangelicals believe.

I think it's safe to assume this is something Orthodoxy and Catholicism essentially agrees with as well.  :)

Why can't the first 11 chapters be seen as oral tradition that was later written down. Some type of ancient recorded memory. They spoke about our origins in the way they knew how, in a way that could be memorized from generation to generation.
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,528
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Literal Genesis - Why?
« Reply #47 on: December 20, 2010, 04:13:09 PM »
Thus,, there cannot be an opposition between faith and science per se. Now, let's look at Genesis 1:1-31. What we see is an order of creation that corresponds to what we have scientifically found to have happened--in that order.
Aren't you presuming that Genesis is a scientific text book? Why should Genesis match what modern scientific theories propose?

I believe Genesis 1:1-31 is an account of what happened. The fact that modern scientific theories are in general agreement with the Genesis account is as it should be. God created not only the entire creation but also the laws that govern the interactions between the various parts of His creation.

"science" is only in accordance with Genesis if you choose to ignore everything the Church has to say about Genesis and interpret it for yourself, with the findings of "science" already in mind. 

Please enlighten me.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,774
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: Literal Genesis - Why?
« Reply #48 on: December 20, 2010, 04:19:06 PM »
are you suggesting that Christ is available independently of the Church, the Book, and the servants?

Not independently of the message of the Book - though I suppose even then we could get into a discussion of the well-known fact of Moslems who become Christians initially because God meets them in a dream or vision. Presumably, such would not consider reading the Book or or attending a church, and God can (and does) find exceptional means. However, discussion of exceptional events is probably not what you are asking me about.

No - there is a big difference between saying the Bible is the final and sufficient authority, given to us by God, for faith and practice, and saying that its first eleven chapters must be taken literally. Whether Gen. 1-11 is historical or not, the soteriology of the Bible sets before us the way of salvation. That, all Evangelicals believe.

I think it's safe to assume this is something Orthodoxy and Catholicism essentially agrees with as well.  :)

Why can't the first 11 chapters be seen as oral tradition that was later written down. Some type of ancient recorded memory. They spoke about our origins in the way they knew how, in a way that could be memorized from generation to generation.

There's some truth to some of the stories because other traditions that lived at the same time have told it in different ways.  But the literal truth of the matter doesn't even hold enough weight of importance to the reason of our salvation:  Christ.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 04:46:22 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.