|  JRyanStevens | May 9, 2007 10:47am | no, they're interpretations. there don't have to be contradictions if everything can be reinterpreted. we should follow the example of the very first book of the bible, and find as many meanings as possible for biblical passages, then take the one that fits best with modern science. that's what has been done to genesis--why not do it to the rest of the book?
(and sorry, I added a bunch to my last post after you responded--but I don't think it pre-addressed your comment. and I know the bee example sucks, but it was the best my brain could do at the moment, lol). |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 10:53am | If a complex truth is presented in several ways through out the book, we must take all of those references and compare them, compare them to historical teachings, and see what is meant. Genesis is one that we have very limited cross references and then allows different camps of thinking because the underline truth of God remains undisturbed.
Here is an interesting article by Kenneth J. Howell; "HOW AUGUSTINE REINED IN SCIENCE" |
|
|
| | JRyanStevens | May 9, 2007 11:16am | There are many, many different camps of thinking--it's not just limited to genesis. why do you think this is the case? I think it's because we know some of it has to be allegorical. once allegory enters, there's no demonstrable standard to follow--because allegories are open for interpretation.
(warning: potentially imflammatory material follows--don't read if you're easily offended) on a sidenote, a complex truth: god required himself to sacrifice himself, to himself, because of a rule he made about forgiveness and blood sacrifices. to do this, he impregnated mary with himself.
I know... I know... |
|
| 
|  eat | May 9, 2007 11:29am | 217: "if you don't keep genesis literal, then how do you prevent everything else from being non-literal also?"
This is an important question, and it should be emphasized that the reinterpretation of Genesis gives a precedent for reinterpreting the rest of the Bible.
Genesis was written in at some time between 500 and 900BC, well before Greek scholars like Augustine, Justin Martyr, Iraneus and others could comment on it. Compared to other historical accounts of creation during the Iron Age, Genesis was almost certainly one of the more advanced. Genesis was so advanced and well publicized that it remained the dominant theory of creation until the 19th century. Since science has begun to contradict Genesis, however, Christians have begun a piecewise allegorization of its historical account from its original literal intent as written by its author centuries before the birth of Christ.
Even in the hypothetical case that Genesis was originally intended as metaphorical, the genealogies of Genesis even more unambiguously state that humanity is no more than 6500 years old (and since my original average generation time between Abraham and Jesus was probably around 25, not 50, a reasonable estimate for humanities age is certainly closer to 5250). Archaeological evidence indicates that homo sapiens emerged on the order of 70,000 years ago. The math of Genesis, which certainly intended to give a sense of historicity to the book, cannot be reinterpreted.
In addition to a believing in a young Earth, anyone who believes that Genesis is the word of God must believe that humanity is tens of thousands of years younger than it actually is. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 11:32am | Again eat, Science doesn't not contradict Genesis, Science contradicts certain interpretation of Genesis. There is a big difference. Infact, that is mentioned in the link I provided on Howell and Augustine. And again, there is no defined doctrine that states one who believes in Genesis as the word of God must believe the Earth is young...
"Many scholars engage in lengthy discussion on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omittedthem. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial."
You have fallen in what Howell is trying to explain:
Christians sometimes make themselves obstacles to the salvation of others rather than instruments of it. They do so when they equate a scientific theory with the meaning of the Bible. Augustine was well aware of this danger already in the fifth century. Not much has changed. His solution is humility both in the interpretation of nature and the interpretation of Scripture.
How can such humility be engendered? By recognizing that the Bible is more about "the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven" than it is about "the motion and orbit of the stars, their size and relative positions, and the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon." He warns against self- imposed authorities in biblical interpretation: "Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books." |
|
|
| | eat | May 9, 2007 11:34am | Please address this statement: "anyone who believes that Genesis is the word of God must believe that humanity is tens of thousands of years younger than it actually is" in light of the arithmetic laid out by the genealogies of Genesis.
I'll be back tomorrow. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 11:38am | Explian what. I don't subscribe to having to believe that. Nothing tells me without a doubt that your arithmetic is correct or that the sets or subsets used in your equation are infallible.
...Suppose someone says that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old, as Christians in the West believed for centuries. Again, we should test this claim by the means that science has at its disposal. For well over a hundred years historical geology has developed tests to show that the earth must be far older than ten thousand years. These tests are cross-checked and rechecked to make sure the time estimates are not flawed. Now what should we do? Shall we insist that the Bible teaches that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old? Could it be that our interpretation is wrong? Augustine advises the second step: "But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofsthat cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture . . . is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions." He urges us to change our interpretation of Scripture, not because Scripture is to be ruled by science, but because no two truths made by God will contradict one another. All truth comes from God, whether discovered by science or by the Church in its interpretation of Scripture. The first question we must ask is whether a particular scientific theory is well-founded. If it is, then we must make sure we don't read the Bible in a manner that contradicts sound knowledge of nature. |
|
|
| | eat | May 9, 2007 11:45am | Tomorrow really means 'indefinite period of time'. [/joke]
My present argument is about the age of humanity, not Earth. Have you looked at my references in post 215? They are reposted below. There are links to each of the references in the original post.
"The relevant genealogies are found in Genesis 5:1-32 , Genesis 11:10-32 and Matthew 1:1-17. A more digestible table of names and dates in Genesis can be found at Wikipedia - Genealogies of Genesis.
This is an important issue, and should not be glossed over. The arithmetic lain out in Genesis is not ambiguous, and has clear implications for the age of humanity. Please look at the details. |
|
|
| | JRyanStevens | May 9, 2007 11:47am | I think he's asking for your interpretation of the genesis ages, or the purpose for God telling them to us. Why be so specific? Is this another allegory? it must be, but why say it like this? ... etc.
225. "Science doesn't not contradict Genesis."
LOL. I think we agree.
edit: whoops. eat's "tomorrow" came pretty quick, lol. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 11:49am | Yes, I have read them and others trying to prove that from then to now means that this earth is young. If the numbers or set of numbers are correct, then I would agree. But what if those who put forth this number, have the set of numbers wrong. God has given us all the variables to solve this equation. So knowing that some numbers may be wrong, then the answer of how old Scripture says our Earth may also be incorrect.
There is no one way of interpretation that I see Christians must believe in. Christians do believe that scriptural texts do not contradict one another. I believe that Genesis gives a vague account of God and His divine hand at the begining of our time. The time spand of creation is not specific and doesn't need to be for the truth of God is not challenged by it. Science is a gift of God and if we discover that the Earth is older, then we can say that the equation timeline set forth (interpretation) by some Christians, must be modified. |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion