EXPELLED Will You Watch It?

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by pelathais

And... it doesn't take a knowledge of photosynthesis to know that plants need sunlight.

You're right, of course. I had in mind the day-age attempt to reconcile Genesis with science. But the writer probably wasn't thinking that way, emphasizing the evening and morning of each day as he did (so, yeah, it was silly to mention the photosynthesis thing). If he was thinking of 24-hour days, he'd know that plants could survive a day in darkness, no problem. (Except that night and day had already been created on day one, even before the Sun. Hmmm.)

Anyway, the point is that this and other features of the Genesis story will be hard to reconcile with evolution (both biological and cosmological), and day-age doesn't help much.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I don't have a problem with the Bible as literature but to say Daniel is plagiarizing and perhaps snooping in the king's bedroom! Why not take the Bible and use it to kindle a fire?

Are you joking, Pel?

Your wrangling with "the Bible as literature" betrays a mindset that will perhaps hinder you from understanding the Bible in any context. Both you and Timmy appear to be stuck in the same rut as you approach this topic; and though you both appear to reach quite different conclusions- from my perspective you are in the same rut.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your wrangling with "the Bible as literature" betrays a mindset that will perhaps hinder you from understanding the Bible in any context. Both you and Timmy appear to be stuck in the same rut as you approach this topic; and though you both appear to reach quite different conclusions- from my perspective you are in the same rut.

Maybe we're in the same rut, but going in opposite directions!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Timmy

You're right, of course. I had in mind the day-age attempt to reconcile Genesis with science. But the writer probably wasn't thinking that way, emphasizing the evening and morning of each day as he did (so, yeah, it was silly to mention the photosynthesis thing). If he was thinking of 24-hour days, he'd know that plants could survive a day in darkness, no problem. (Except that night and day had already been created on day one, even before the Sun. Hmmm.)

Anyway, the point is that this and other features of the Genesis story will be hard to reconcile with evolution (both biological and cosmological), and day-age doesn't help much.

The Genesis account cannot be understood as a one-to-one correlation to natural History. That's like taking the last Self Portrait by Picasso and correlating it to a photograph for comparisions. Picasso's painting simply was never intended to reproduce a photograph. It was intended to evoke a feeling.

The same with Genesis 1. It was never intended to "reproduce" a natural history of the earth and its environments. It was intended to differentiate a nation of people from the nations that surrounded them. And none of those nations even existed at the time of the creation. The writers of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are simply giving some categories as a backdrop for the far more important points that are brought up in the Law of Moses. It's the Law that's at center stage here, not nature.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your wrangling with "the Bible as literature" betrays a mindset that will perhaps hinder you from understanding the Bible in any context. Both you and Timmy appear to be stuck in the same rut as you approach this topic; and though you both appear to reach quite different conclusions- from my perspective you are in the same rut.

What do you mean, Pel?

I see the Bible as being written in different styles or genre of writing; poetry, historical, letters, etc. I also understand the Bible to be inspired of God.

How does this "hinder" my understanding in any context? What rut are you talking about?

[Timmy]

And Exodus is all about God's love and care of His chosen people, not about the atrocities that were "needed" to free them. And the law is about demonstrating man's depravity and a need for a savior. And the NT is all about God's supreme "sacrifice" for us (never mind that God knew before hand that His son's death wasn't going to be permanent, and never mind that if I killed my son for someone else's benefit, it would be permanent).

Believe me, I get the anti-fundamentalist idea. I don't get that the best alternative is .... well, all the stuff above. Why not believe that the most likely thing (Occam's razor sometimes works very well, thank you very much) is true: the Bible is a collection of various ideas about God, some better than others, not divinely inspired, and far from perfect?

I am believing more and more that, if God had inspired the Bible, He'd have done a much better job. It would not be subject to such wildly varying interpretations (leading to endless fighting over them), it would not have been the cause of so many suicides (when it doesn't work) and deaths of sick children whose parents believe the healing scriptures, and it would not be so full of "apparent" contradictions and errors that require contortions to explain away. And God should have done a better job "preserving His word". The originals are gone. The copies we have are not perfect -- there are changes, missing parts, and additions. There isn't even agreement on what should be in the canon.

Well, that's my rut. Looking around, I don't see Mizpeh, afer all.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The Genesis account cannot be understood as a one-to-one correlation to natural History. That's like taking the last Self Portrait by Picasso and correlating it to a photograph for comparisions. Picasso's painting simply was never intended to reproduce a photograph. It was intended to evoke a feeling.

The same with Genesis 1. It was never intended to "reproduce" a natural history of the earth and its environments. It was intended to differentiate a nation of people from the nations that surrounded them. And none of those nations even existed at the time of the creation. The writers of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are simply giving some categories as a backdrop for the far more important points that are brought up in the Law of Moses. It's the Law that's at center stage here, not nature.

Pel, I wish you would speak more plainly so I could understand you better.

Here let me see if I understand what you are saying.

The Genesis account cannot be understood as a one-to-one correlation to natural History. That's like taking the last Self Portrait by Picasso and correlating it to a photograph for comparisions. Picasso's painting simply was never intended to reproduce a photograph. It was intended to evoke a feeling.

You can't take the Genesis account of creation literally nor in its proper order.
Yep, you lost me with the Picasso analogy again.

The same with Genesis 1. It was never intended to "reproduce" a natural history of the earth and its environments. It was intended to differentiate a nation of people from the nations that surrounded them. And none of those nations even existed at the time of the creation.

LOST! I'm completely lost! What do you mean?

The writers of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are simply giving some categories as a backdrop for the far more important points that are brought up in the Law of Moses. It's the Law that's at center stage here, not nature

Do you think this is how David or Job or the Apostle Paul understood Genesis?

Categories?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Well, that's my rut. Looking around, I don't see Mizpeh, afer all.

LOL, Timmy, I was thinking the same thing but I pray one day we will meet.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

LOL, Timmy, I was thinking the same thing but I pray one day we will meet.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Pel, I wish you would speak more plainly so I could understand you better.

Here let me see if I understand what you are saying.

You can't take the Genesis account of creation literally nor in its proper order.

What is the "proper order?" The order that it's written in, or the order that makes sense as a natural history? It's not a natural history. The writers very obviously knew that they were NOT writing a natural history.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Yep, you lost me with the Picasso analogy again.

Picasso was perfectly capable of painting a picture in 1972 that looked like Picasso. Instead, he purposefully painted a "cartoonish" looking form. He had a reason to do so.

The writers of Genesis were perfectly capable of writing a natural history (or at least an encapsulation of one) but they purposefully chose not to do so. They had a very good reason for doing that.

It's a bit unfair to say, "Picasso can't paint..." when he has demonstrated the ability to do so in the past. But looking at the 1972 painting, people have made that charge.

So also, it is unfair to say that the writers of the Bible were unable to write knowledgably about their natural world. For while lacking our technical capabilities, they have demonstrated keen insights and the ability to make sound deductions based upon their "primitive" observations. The order of the creation "events" is too big of a gaff to have missed. The more reasonable conclusion is that they were making a point about something that we may have lost over the centuries. One focus of theirs that we haven't lost is Israel, however.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

LOST! I'm completely lost! What do you mean?

Do you think this is how David or Job or the Apostle Paul understood Genesis?

Categories?

Yes, except Job... and David. From most of the dates put forth (and the very good arguments for those dates) it would seem that the book of Job predates Genesis 1 and 2. And it was the reforming ways of David's ancestor Josiah who set the theme for the work of the writers of Genesis 1 & 2 and the later Sopherim working under Ezra.

"Attention to categories" is the simplest definition of "holiness."