2. Are you a biblical literalist? 3. If so, how do you reconcile Genesis' internal inconsistencies? (Gen 1 and Gen 2)
Yes I am actually. (oh boy... this is a big can of worms... I have now just opened up myself to millions of potential questions).
The third question is quite a common question actually.
I believe the two chapters are written for a different context and purpose and this different context and purpose is why they (whoever they were) decided to make the beginning of chapter 2 at this point.
Genesis 1 is an overview of the creation process whereas Genesis 2 focuses in specifically on man and goes into more detail. Genesis 1 is about the process of creation and Genesis 2 is about man.
They are in fact complementary and not contradictory. Genesis 2 is not dealing with the creation of the universe but with the creation of man and therefore other parts of creation mentioned in chapter 2 are not required to be in any kind of chronological order.
You can do some searches on the net for more in depth explanations.
The third question is quite a common question actually.
I believe the two chapters are written for a different context and purpose and this different context and purpose is why they (whoever they were) decided to make the beginning of chapter 2 at this point.
Genesis 1 is an overview of the creation process whereas Genesis 2 focuses in specifically on man and goes into more detail. Genesis 1 is about the process of creation and Genesis 2 is about man.
They are in fact complementary and not contradictory. Genesis 2 is not dealing with the creation of the universe but with the creation of man and therefore other parts of creation mentioned in chapter 2 are not required to be in any kind of chronological order.
You can do some searches on the net for more in depth explanations.
posted by Gareth at 4:05 PM
2 Comments:
I crafted a very careful post last night which I somehow lost. So I'll re-post the essence of it quickly.
Essentially, there are 2 extremes of Biblical interpretation. One is that every single item is to be interpreted as truthful and literal in the most true sense. The other extreme is that it is a beautifully crafted work of fiction. I am most definitely much closer to the former then the latter. Much,much closer.
But what I'd like to point out is that even the strictest literal interpretation makes room for some non-literal reading, unless you mean to say that Solomon's beloved looks like this and God is really a stone used as a strong foundation for a building. So really the difference between your view of the Bible and mine is of degree, not of type.
You asked earlier 'if you don't believe the start of the Bible why woould you belive the rest'. Good question. Well, to start with , the New Testament for example, consists almost completely of historical documents, located in space and time (all describe events that had happened with the exception of Revelations). There is no disputing these accounts in my mind (possible inconsistencies between the Gospels notwithstanding).
As far as Genesis, I feel fairlt certain that the creation story is an explanation suited to the time and the purpose. God doesn't need to explain sub-atomic particles and deep time for us to understand the fact that we are beings with souls who are made in His image (you might call me out for inconsistency here- but evolution doesn't require me to not believe in souls-in fact it is silent on the issue of souls). I do believe that there was some kind of fall from grace. I am less clear as to which point in the Bible seperates the 'mythical/poetic' from the literal (people far more intelligent than me have argued that the book of Jonah is allegorical). I probably should be a lot clearer about these things than I am.
BUT the centre of my faith is my relationship with my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ- I am not under any illusion that I will find salvation anywhere else- and incidentally I don't think I have said anything that would ocntradict a statement of faith such as the Apostles Creed (correct my vigorously if this is untrue). I don't look to evolution to save me, and neither do I look to certainty in interpretation of scripture. Because scripture is important, but not the fundamental part of my faith, I am less concerned by these difficulties of understanding it. Certainly the day I feel I understand God's word in it's completeness is the day I delude myself.
Thanks for answering these questions, I'm enjoying this discussion so far.
Peter (and his three strings)
Lemme get this straight (peter)...you are a christian who believes in evolution?
Post a Comment
<< Home