Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: fso301

When “literally” interpreting scripture, one does nothing but pick and choose among ones own preconeptions, looking for something that isn’t there.

The whole idea of an Intelligent Designer is a modern preconception, piously meant, I’m sure, but entirely absent from a plain reading of Genesis.

The formula, “Let the earth bring forth” is repeated wrt the animals, but in that case it is added, “And God made the beast of the earth ...” where this is not said of the grass and other plants. Isn’t this an indication of the lesser status of plants? Doesn’t this distinction fall afoul of our modern conception of the unity of DNA based life forms?


42 posted on 03/18/2012 9:52:51 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: dr_lew
When “literally” interpreting scripture, one does nothing but pick and choose among ones own preconeptions, looking for something that isn’t there.

True.

The whole idea of an Intelligent Designer is a modern preconception,

Agreed. The growing body of scientific knowledge forced a rethinking of preconceptions by which Genesis had previously been interpreted.

piously meant, I’m sure, but entirely absent from a plain reading of Genesis.

I would disagree because inherent in the account is something every creative person understands and that is that you do not begin with the next phase of a project until design criteria for the present phase have been met.

In the Genesis account, God did not begin the next phase of creation until after he recognized the phase he was working on was complete and to his satisfaction... "And God saw that it was good". He knew what the desired objective was but needed some time to get there and only after recognizing that "it was good" did he begin the next phase.

The formula, “Let the earth bring forth” is repeated wrt the animals, but in that case it is added, “And God made the beast of the earth ...” where this is not said of the grass and other plants. Isn’t this an indication of the lesser status of plants?

Yes. I would agree.

Doesn’t this distinction fall afoul of our modern conception of the unity of DNA based life forms?

I don't see how it does but I don't claim anything beyond a layman's understanding of DNA.

Basically, plant life is a lesser (in complexity) life form and would have evolved first.

54 posted on 03/19/2012 4:06:20 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson