Young Earth Frustration

[_stemelbow]

I'm not assuming anything. I'm taking the text for what it reads. You are the one making assumptions, for which you should account.

In truth I don't wish to quibble squarely on verse 3 anyway. I'm merely saying its possible to read the passage and story of Genesis differently than you. There is afterall no indication that light was not around before God spoke it into existence in Genesis--well maybe no around the earth but since the universe is essentially infinitely large its hard to say otherwise, right?

[_Hoops]

Jesus' parables were not literal, but they certainly impart truth, do they not?

I think you would agree that there is a vast contextual difference between Jesus' parables and the opening chapters of Genesis. And I think you would agree that Jesus' audience KNEW that He was talking in parables. Yes, they both impart truth. But there is nothing in Genesis to suggest that it should be taken as a parable. In fact, I can't recall ANYTHING in the Old Testament that suggests it is a parable or metaphorical. Of course, the New Testament has a different intention, so the dynamics are different.


I suppose one can, but I would ask "why?" The text is quite clear in what it says. If it is left to be interpreted from/by other sources, what is indeed the final authority?

[_Hoops]

In truth I don't wish to quibble squarely on verse 3 anyway. I'm merely saying its possible to read the passage and story of Genesis differently than you.

It's possible to read ANYTHING any way you wish.

There is afterall no indication that light was not around before God spoke it into existence in Genesis--well maybe no around the earth but since the universe is essentially infinitely large its hard to say otherwise, right?

Sure there is. The text demands that history/time began on "the first day". Light requires time to "function".

[_Runtu]

I think you would agree that there is a vast contextual difference between Jesus' parables and the opening chapters of Genesis. And I think you would agree that Jesus' audience KNEW that He was talking in parables. Yes, they both impart truth. But there is nothing in Genesis to suggest that it should be taken as a parable. In fact, I can't recall ANYTHING in the Old Testament that suggests it is a parable or metaphorical. Of course, the New Testament has a different intention, so the dynamics are different.

I wasn't making the ludicrous claim that the Genesis account is equivalent to the parables. What I was saying was that parables, allegories, inspired myth can all impart truth, as you noted. It doesn't bother me at all that some parts of the Bible can and should be interpreted with varying degrees of literalness. Apparently, you don't agree. No big deal. I'm not a fundamentalist or Biblical inerrantist, after all.

I suppose one can, but I would ask "why?" The text is quite clear in what it says. If it is left to be interpreted from/by other sources, what is indeed the final authority?

There is no such thing as text without interpretation. Without interpretation, it's just marks on paper or random sounds. In my view, it is dangerous and pointless to invest a text with final authority, especially when one insists on a single interpretation as authoritative.

I think I've said what I want to say here. I'm just not a literalist, as you are. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;-)

[_Hoops]

I'd like to hear more about that. Do you believe that Jesus was the source of light on the first day? Sorry if that is totally not where you were going with that, but that is the only thing I can come up with.

I'm also interested in what is said about the moon, which I assume is the "light" that rules the night. Do you think that the moon is literally a light in the sense that it has its own light source? Or is it okay to read into the text what we know about the moon being reflective of the solar light? Same goes for the "lights" that I assume are talking about stars

.

These are fair question. The text only demands that the moon is the light that governs the night. Not that the light emanates (sp?) from the moon. I think Genesis is quite clear and specific for a reason.

[_just me]

If the Sun was created several (solar Earth) days after the Earth doesn't that present some problems? I'm just thinking as far as not only stars not being able to be seen, but also the temperature of the Earth and atmosphere. I mean, I am not a scientist, it just seems problematic to me.

You've asked about several things here, but recall from the text that The Holy Spirit was "hovering" over the earth. I think the original word implies some sort of shaking or action being put on it.

I guess it just falls back on God creating everything by magic. That isn't really a Mormon thought, though. Mormon thought is that God uses and obeys the laws of nature. The atmosphere would have had to be created by magic and so would the lighting of the stars.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

If those things started out by magic how come they have reverted to working by laws that can be learned and tested? Actually, I guess some stars are still working by magic since a 6000 year old Sun would not have reflected light off them yet....Hmmmm.

Why wouldn't they "revert" to measurable laws of the universie. Secondly, you're assuming that these laws are constant. I think there is some evidence that they are not. I'm going from memory here (tipoff is in 3 hours!!:) For example: the big bang theory has impacted the idea that light has always travelled at a constant. Also, that time has not always been how itss measured today. That kind of thing.

First, have a great game!

Now, I think what I am trying to say is that science would tell us that it took a really long time for the Earth to be prepared for certain events--like life to take hold. For the Earth to be instantly created to support life would have to break a lot of laws of how we know things to work today. That is why I say magic has to be employed by God to do it all in a matter of a few Earth days. If the Holy Spirit was causing things to happen to the Earth, like for it to warm up or get the right level of oxygen, it seems like the only way to do that is by supernatural powers.

I'm trying to figure out how Adam would have seen any starlight and how we are able to see starlight from stars that are over 6000 light years away.

[_Hoops]

I wasn't making the ludicrous claim that the Genesis account is equivalent to the parables. What I was saying was that parables, allegories, inspired myth can all impart truth, as you noted. It doesn't bother me at all that some parts of the Bible can and should be interpreted with varying degrees of literalness. Apparently, you don't agree. No big deal. I'm not a fundamentalist or Biblical inerrantist, after all.

I know you weren't. I wasn't implying that you were. My point is that to take any text with varying degrees of literalness invites abuse. One should begin with a literal rendering of the whole text, and let it support/not support the degree of its literalness. (I'm glad you used that word. I was going to use it earlier but I wasn't sure if it actually was a word :)

There is no such thing as text without interpretation. Without interpretation, it's just marks on paper or random sounds. In my view, it is dangerous and pointless to invest a text with final authority, especially when one insists on a single interpretation as authoritative.

Of course. Why would one begin with a metaphorical reading of the text? Why not beging with what the words actually mean? And it is more dangerous, in my opinion, to not have a single standard or reference from which to interpret the text. But, I would say it is the text that insists on what it is saying, not me.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I have never subscribed to such a view of Genesis. Whether it's literal or not has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

I think that it does. If it's not literal, what does "truth" even mean?

Do you believe there is no such thing as a metaphysical or metaphorical truth?

[_Hoops]

First, have a great game!

We will!!! We're going to kick their _ss in Christian love!!

Now, I think what I am trying to say is that science would tell us that it took a really long time for the Earth to be prepared for certain events--like life to take hold. For the Earth to be instantly created to support life would have to break a lot of laws of how we know things to work today. That is why I say magic has to be employed by God to do it all in a matter of a few Earth days. If the Holy Spirit was causing things to happen to the Earth, like for it to warm up or get the right level of oxygen, it seems like the only way to do that is by supernatural powers.

I think you would agree that the creation story is an example of a supernatural event. I make no apologies for that, and not required to explain it in other terms. Without veering too far off, for one to believe in God invites a belief in supernatural events. I don't think that's logically incoherent.

I'm trying to figure out how Adam would have seen any starlight and how we are able to see starlight from stars that are over 6000 light years away.

Without getting into a Bible study here, one might note that the text says that light "in the vaults in the sky" were created on the fourth day. But light itself on the first. Two seperate creation events. That implies that when Adam "showed up" that the light was already in transit.

[_Runtu]

I know you weren't. I wasn't implying that you were. My point is that to take any text with varying degrees of literalness invites abuse. One should begin with a literal rendering of the whole text, and let it support/not support the degree of its literalness. (I'm glad you used that word. I was going to use it earlier but I wasn't sure if it actually was a word :)

I guess I'm approaching this from an entirely different perspective from you.

Of course. Why would one begin with a metaphorical reading of the text? Why not beging with what the words actually mean? And it is more dangerous, in my opinion, to not have a single standard or reference from which to interpret the text. But, I would say it is the text that insists on what it is saying, not me.

I don't see any particular reason to start with a "literal" reading. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "begin with the what the words actually mean." Words don't mean anything without context and interpretation, and our context and interpretation (and indeed language) are not the same as when the words were written. The first time someone read the words of Genesis, they took meaning only because of the context and bias and life experience of the person reading them.

As a Mormon, I read it more or less literally when I was a child, with of course the understanding that Mormons believe the "day" in the Bible refers to a "creative period" of undetermined length. Once you remove the six literal days from the equation, there's not really a huge obstacle to accepting an old earth and evolution. When I got older and understood the evidence, I figured that God must have used evolution during the creative periods.