Posted on 04/18/2006 10:31:13 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
"And hundres of millions believe Genesis as written. What's your point?"
Well, I can't answer for the other poster, but the fact that there is considerable division amongst Jews and Christians about the Genesis account means that it's not entirely clear who is correct.
Either the Genesis account is an allegory, as many believe, or it is literally true, as many others believe.
I take my clue from the audience that was being addressed in Genesis at the time of its writing. A detailed explanation of the processes involved would not have been comprehensible to them. So, a simple account was preferable.
The similarity of the Genesis account to other creation stories, at least in its simplicity, tends to add credence to the allegorical nature of the account.
Do a search for "creation stories" (no quotes) on Google. You'll find several sites which contain creation stories from a number of cultures. All of them are allegorical.
MM said it better than I would have.
So we are left with some believe one thing and others believe something else. Works for me.
"So we are left with some believe one thing and others believe something else. Works for me."
Yup. That's it, at least until someone tells someone else that not believing as they do means they're going to Hell. Then, you see, it gets personal.
It's fine to believe just about anything. Insisting that others do the same is not the right thing to do, in my opinion.
So little faith in God's creation! Why don't you trust us to figure it out ourselves?
I certainly have never "insisted" anyone believe anything.
The bible is correct. Any interpretation of it can be fallible.Either the Genesis account is an allegory, as many believe, or it is literally true, as many others believe.
True, but it makes no claim or allusion to the possibility of it being an allegory. It does not follow the typical format of Hebrew prose.I take my clue from the audience that was being addressed in Genesis at the time of its writing. A detailed explanation of the processes involved would not have been comprehensible to them. So, a simple account was preferable.
I certainly agree with that. Even the simple explanation of the processes that are given are not comprehensible to much of the present generation. However, it doesn't take a genius to see that a simple explanation of evolution in no way resembles the account given in Genesis. If evolution were true, God could have easily given a simple account that described the series of events. I believe that you are underestimating the intelligence of the audience that was being addressed, and you underestimate God's ability to reveal Himself to us.The similarity of the Genesis account to other creation stories, at least in its simplicity, tends to add credence to the allegorical nature of the account.
It also adds credence to the possibility that the Genesis account is true since all cultures in the world would have descended from the family of Noah. A root family with the ability to communicate.Do a search for "creation stories" (no quotes) on Google. You'll find several sites which contain creation stories from a number of cultures. All of them are allegorical.
However, none of these stories claim to be the inspired word of God.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.- 1 Corinthians 2:14-16
And cosmology. This is why I don't put any stock in the book of Genesis as a scientific text.
Believe what you will. Darwinian evolution is based on the geological theories of Hutton and Lyell, which deny the Biblical chronologies and Noah's Flood. There are Orthodox Jews, including very traditional Yeshivish ones, who interpret the opening verses of the Torah according to Darwin, but aside from heretics they all switch to literalism once Adam arrives on the scene and accept everything from that point onward (including Methuselah, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc.) as literal history (how many times do I have to say this, people?). Of course, none of the pro-evolution statements issued by Orthodox bodies mentions this little fact, but they are trying to hide their own fundamentalism. I can't help but wonder, however, how subscribing to uniformitarian naturalism during the period when nature was in the process of being created and then switching to miracle mode can be squared with basic logic--especially qal vachomer.
I do understand that the Orthodox rabbinate is in a bit of a quandary. On the one hand, since the "enlightenment," Jewishness has acquired a reputation for skepticism, intellectualism, and free-thinking dissent (the prior 3100 years of Jewishness seems to have slipped into an Orwellian memory hole). Most non-observant Jews consider religiosity to be "un-Jewish," and the rabbis have to appeal to these people in order to bring them back home. On the other hand, now that Noachism is beginning to blossom here and there (mostly among fundamentalist "rednecks"), these same rabbis have to appeal to these people who define Jewishness by the Book of Joshua. Not a fun position to be in, is it? Of course, it wouldn't be a quandary for me, but then, I'm one of Eric Hoffer's "true believers."
In case you haven't noticed, the evolutionists on this board reject G-d and "intelligent design" outright, so I don't know who you think you're impressing with your compromise. "Intelligent design" is merely non-literalist "theistic evolution" which insists that at some point G-d breaks out of "fairyland" into reality. Anti-ID evolutionists are not merely non-literalists. They construct a gulf between "reality" and "speculative philosophy," with G-d confined to the latter, never intruding into mundane reality.
I am not one of those who sees an imminent collapse of Darwinism, but should such a thing occur I predict that all the Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, classical Protestants, etc., who have spent the past 150 years shooting barbs at "rednecks" and loudly claiming "we have never had a problem with evolution!" will suddenly appear and loudly claim credit for the victory of creationism, patting themselves on the back for "never giving in to modernity." The sad fact is that out of all the peoples of the world, only the "rednecks" have remained true to the vision all the ancient religions once held to but are now so ashamed of.
I should say "Divine Design" rather than ID. And it is peculiar that evidence points to certain forms of evolution, yet consistently lacks the crucial "joining" points.
Though I love science so too that I sometimes argue with God as to His creation. Though as I said, "If I knew Him I'd be Him."
Two books lately have influenced my thinking and inspiration: Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God and Guillermo Gonzaalez and Jay W Richards The Privileged Planet.
Thanks for your insights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.