Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
I must admit that my reasons for wanting the days in genesis to be figurative is because I believe the universe to be an old place. I've never really thought about that before, but I suppose that's where my opinion comes from. When you really get down to it, I'm not much of an expert on those particular passages. I've read the book of genesis a number of times, but my familiarity with ancient hebrew is certainly very lacking. Also, I've never studied the text closely enough to make a decent conclusion on whether or not the text implies a literal or figurative definition of day. However David, I'm sure you agree that any serious contradictions between the Bible and science would be problematic. If science declared (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that the universe was a billion years old, and the Bible declared (with equal certainty) that the universe was 6000 years old, clearly there was a contradiction that must be worked out in some manner. I suppose it would come down to who you trusted more :) What do you believe about creation? I can imagine a nice compromise in my head, whereby the universe was created 15 billion or so years ago, and our planet (or the life on our planet) was a much more recent creation. Of course, thinking it doesn't make it so. I suppose that, in the end, the only conclusion I can make is that the universe is an old place. I don't really know enough to truly decide between a literal or figurative day. To be completely honest, it's not something I've given a huge amount of thought to. I find astronomy to be very interesting and entertaining, but there are many aspects of christianity that are much more important in my personal life, and get much more attention. Quoting David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: John wrote: To your first question , no. If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. John wrote: To your second question, either you did not read my post or you have decided to insult my presentation? I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good theology, in my opinion. The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of creation? David Miller John, I have a couple questions for you. 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he is accepted as a theologian. His arguments for why the day is not figurative made a lot of sense to me. 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in
Re: [TruthTalk] Hello
I'm not currently Catholic, no. When I started reading the Bible, it didn't take me long before I started seeing a lot of contradictions between the teachings of the Catholic church and the Bible. Considering that the Bible is the best source of information we have on Jesus and his life, I decided to take the Bible's word for it. However, I was born and raised catholic, was a practicing catholic for the first 18 years of my life, and I went to catholic school for 8 years. So, I consider myself pretty aware of the catholic perspective, from a real life point of view. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Such a short question, but such a long answer :) I think that astronomy is something that often gets overlooked in that question. The last time I checked, astronomers dated the universe to about 13.5 billion years old. The dating of the universe is something that has been discussed often in my astronomy classes. The method astronomers use to come to this conclusion is a little strange, but largely makes sense. However, even if their dating method was completely wrong, there would still be plenty of evidence that the universe looks old. Models of the sun which accurately predict its structure also predict ages and lifetimes (old ages and long lifetimes). The same models work well for other stars we observe, and seem to be good models beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a lot to it, but essentially the universe looks old. Quick example. Models of star formation predict that it would take hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years for a star to collapse from a cloud of gas. The sun is a star. Therefore it seems a safe bet that the sun is at least a million years old. I accept that fact that the universe looks old. I suppose it's possible that God created the universe in such a way that it looks old, but is in actuality young. I don't see why that would be necessary though. Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. Whether the first chapter of genesis is literal or figurative, the underlying story still stays the same. The universe (and us) are God's creation. We were created in his image. That's the entire point of genesis, and it's a point that remains the same regardless. Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. I find macro evolution to be rather hard to buy. There's a couple other things I wanted to say in regards to the previous e-mails. DaveH: Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary. I would disagree with that satement. The universe is a creation of God's, and the laws of physics that run our universe are also His creation. As His creations, He has complete control over them. It's quite possible that God performs his miracles without breaking the laws that run our universe, but I think it much more likely that when God makes a miracle happen, the laws of physics step aside. Just think about the feeding of the five thousand. How is it possible for 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed five thousand men until they were full? I realize that human beings don't have a complete understanding of the laws of physics, but I'm pretty sure that that is a task which is physically impossible. The laws of physics (as we know them) had to go right out the window for that one. The universe is God's creation. Just as we can modify a computer as much as we want (after all, it's our creation), God can change this universe as much as he wants. DaveH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. I think you have a very good point here. It is very easy to attribute things to God that God didn't necessarily do. After all, coincidences do happen. In this case, I am thinking about a particular example. This was a while back, so I don't remember the details exactly. About a year ago I visited an LDS church one sunday (someone on this list is mormon, right?). Anyway, at this particular service people from the congregation were coming up to the front and sharing their testimony. One lady came up and talked about her very long conversion to mormonism. She was originally visited by some missionaries when she was younger (late teens, early twenties, I don't remember). She talked with them, but, didn't convert. Instead, she remained a nominal christian for a decade or two. Some crisis happened in her life that left her very much in search of God. She prayed that God would help her figure things out and in about five minutes a pair of LDS missionaries showed up at her door. She took it as a sign, and shortly there after became mormon. I've heard many example of things like this helping people become christians as well. I'm sure there are example like this from just about every religion. However, they can't all be acts of God. They only way that is possible is if God is just as happy with people being mormon as he is with people being christian. However, I think that the mormon missionaries I have talked with would disagree with
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I think there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] Hello
Hello Everyone, I recently joined truth talk and just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Conor Mancone. I'll be graduating from the University of Florida in a few short months with two degrees, one in physics and another in astronomy. For those of you who care for a little background, I would tell you that I have been religious my whole life. I was raised Catholic by my mother, and have always believed and followed God. When I arrived at college, I began learning a lot more about my faith, as well as reading the Bible. Now adays, I'm happy to call myself christian, and I follow Jesus with all of my heart (or, to be completely truthful, with as much of my heart as I can). I look forward to getting to know all of you and talking with you. -Conor -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
