The Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions

[Brian Stoffregen]

My car was created once.  Actually, it evolved, since earlier cars were less and less advanced.  Now I learn that, since my car is reborn again each day when I insert and turn the key and it comes to life, its creation is continuous! 

And you'd better add gas and change the oil, or its continuous creation will end. Checking the air in the tires can be important, too. However, since it's being driven by a fallen human in the fallen world, it's corrupted. It will eventually die. Then you can rebuild or replace the engine and transmission, and it is resurrected to a new life again.

[Brian Stoffregen]

While that is true, it doesn't really add much to the conversation.  Of course there were no particles in the beginning because the earth was without form and void.  Moreover, "in the beginning is beyond the domain of science because science is bound by creation, after the fact.

There was something: darkness was over "the deep" and the spirit hovered "the waters". Water does not have form. It takes the shape of whatever container is holding it.

[truthseeker]

The core science of evolution is the product of the scientific method.

The problem is that the scientific method requires hypotheses whose deductive consequences can be inductively tested.  No hypothesis about the distant past can be inductively tested without making the reasonable but non-scientific assumption that the so-called "laws of nature" have always operated in essentially the same way that we observe them operating today.

But science lacks the capacity to test the null hypotheses:
1) Christ was not born of a virgin mother; and,
2) Christ was not raised from the dead.

and 3) the universe was not created in six 24-hour days.

Well said

[truthseeker]

Why does "science" has the right to determine whether a Scriptural text should be interpreted literally or not ?  If other supernatural accounts are interpreted literally, why make exception for 6-days creation? Just because science seems to say No? This kind of "exegesis" is just selective "exegesis" and double standard of liberal mind

[truthseeker]

Apostle Peter apparently dealt with Genesis accounts literally in his second epistle. Who should we follow in interpretting scriptural texts, apostles or scientists (John 20:29, 2 Cor 5:7 faith VS reason or sight)?

[John Mundinger]

Why does "science" has the right to determine whether a Scriptural text should be interpreted literally or not ?

Science has nothing to say about the appropriate way to interpret Scripture.  Science does have something to say about the creation is ordered. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Why does "science" has the right to determine whether a Scriptural text should be interpreted literally or not ?  If other supernatural accounts are interpreted literally, why make exception for 6-days creation? Just because science seems to say No? This kind of "exegesis" is just selective "exegesis" and double standard of liberal mind

It is not just science, but also exegesis. Many of us see Genesis 1 being a different creation story than Genesis 2. The style of writing is different.  Genesis 1 is a very orderly account with eight acts of creation spaced within six days, with a connection between day 1 and 4, day 2 and 5, and day 3 and 6. The style of writing reflects bringing order out of chaos. The language is different, e.g., Genesis 2 never uses the word "create". The order of the events are different: in Genesis 1 the humans are created together after all the plants and animals. In Genesis 2, the human ('adam) is formed first so that there is someone to tend to God's garden, which comes next. Then comes the animals, which the human names (God gives things names in Gen 1). Finally, woman is formed. In Genesis 1, God creates by speaking a word, and perhaps out of nothing (although some exegetes see Gen 1 as bringing order to the chaos that already existed rather than producing matter,) creation happens. In Genesis 2, God is always forming out of something - the soil, and then the human's rib.


All these differences lead some exegetes to conclude that we have two separate and different accounts of the beginning of the universe. I think it's an illogical step to try and make them fit each other. The language and style of writing are so different - and that has nothing to do with science.


Then one can throw in other biblical creation accounts, such as Psalms 8; 19, 24, 74, 89, 93, 104; 136; Job 38:1-42:6. We have Wisdom's role in creation: Wisdom 7:22a; 8:4-5; 9:9; Psalm 104:24; Proverbs 3:18; 8:22-31; Jeremiah 10:12; Sirach 1:1-10; 24:1-7. There are multiple pictures of God creating the universe given in scriptures. Genesis 1 and 2 are only two of them.

[truthseeker]

Why does "science" has the right to determine whether a Scriptural text should be interpreted literally or not ?

Science has nothing to say about the appropriate way to interpret Scripture.  Science does have something to say about the creation is ordered.

So why don't you interpret Genesis literally?
In fact, what Science says about creation (and many other issues) is not necessarily objectively true.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Why does "science" has the right to determine whether a Scriptural text should be interpreted literally or not ?

Science has nothing to say about the appropriate way to interpret Scripture.  Science does have something to say about the creation is ordered.

So why don't you interpret Genesis literally?
In fact, what Science says about creation (and many other issues) is not necessarily objectively true.

We interpret the stories as they were meant to be interpreted; as mythic stories that declare truths about God, creation, the importance of the sabbath rest, why men and women desire to come together as one.

[Fletch]

Why does "science" has the right to determine whether a Scriptural text should be interpreted literally or not ?

Science has nothing to say about the appropriate way to interpret Scripture.  Science does have something to say about the creation is ordered.

So why don't you interpret Genesis literally?
In fact, what Science says about creation (and many other issues) is not necessarily objectively true.

Perhaps those who do not interpret Genesis as it was interpreted for thousands of years are influenced by thinkers of the past couple hundred years, for example Schleiermacher, who many think initiated the historical-critical method of interpretation.  My personal opinion is it is rather arrogant of man (related to the original sin) to believe he now knows more about events of a few thousand years ago than the people on the scene at the time, but others see it differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schleiermacher

... Fletch

[John Mundinger]

Why does "science" has the right to determine whether a Scriptural text should be interpreted literally or not ?

Science has nothing to say about the appropriate way to interpret Scripture.  Science does have something to say about the creation is ordered.

So why don't you interpret Genesis literally?

Based on science, for pretty much the same reasons that I do not think that the earth is flat and the center of the universe.

Theologically, because I think a literal understanding of Genesis 1 diminishes the Lutheran understanding that God created order from nothing, by the power of His Word; diminishes the significance of Christ's presence before creation, before the fall and His participation in the creation event; diminishes the significance of God's continuous creative power in the lives of individual believers already before their conception; and, places too much of the fault for original sin on Adam and, thus, provides a convenient way to avoid a measure of accountability for our own original sin.

I also think a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - 2 is an effort to put God in a box.  Whether viewed theologically or scientifically, the creation is a mystery that transcends human reason.  I prefer to marvel at the mystery and am content with my inability to solve it.

[Voelker]

Why does "science" has the right to determine whether a Scriptural text should be interpreted literally or not ?

Science has nothing to say about the appropriate way to interpret Scripture.  Science does have something to say about the creation is ordered.

So why don't you interpret Genesis literally?
In fact, what Science says about creation (and many other issues) is not necessarily objectively true.

We interpret the stories as they were meant to be interpreted; as mythic stories that declare truths about God, creation, the importance of the sabbath rest, why men and women desire to come together as one.

So then — fairy tales. Now there's something to put one's hope in.

[truthseeker]

Why does "science" has the right to determine whether a Scriptural text should be interpreted literally or not ?

Science has nothing to say about the appropriate way to interpret Scripture.  Science does have something to say about the creation is ordered.

So why don't you interpret Genesis literally?
In fact, what Science says about creation (and many other issues) is not necessarily objectively true.

We interpret the stories as they were meant to be interpreted; as mythic stories that declare truths about God, creation, the importance of the sabbath rest, why men and women desire to come together as one.

How do you know how they should be meant to be interpreted ? According to science 、sight 、reason 、rational or the pattern of Bible itself just like 2 Peter interpretting those accounts of Genesis?
And in relation how do you define myth? Everything that science can't prove?

[truthseeker]

Why does "science" has the right to determine whether a Scriptural text should be interpreted literally or not ?  If other supernatural accounts are interpreted literally, why make exception for 6-days creation? Just because science seems to say No? This kind of "exegesis" is just selective "exegesis" and double standard of liberal mind

It is not just science, but also exegesis. Many of us see Genesis 1 being a different creation story than Genesis 2. The style of writing is different.  Genesis 1 is a very orderly account with eight acts of creation spaced within six days, with a connection between day 1 and 4, day 2 and 5, and day 3 and 6. The style of writing reflects bringing order out of chaos. The language is different, e.g., Genesis 2 never uses the word "create". The order of the events are different: in Genesis 1 the humans are created together after all the plants and animals. In Genesis 2, the human ('adam) is formed first so that there is someone to tend to God's garden, which comes next. Then comes the animals, which the human names (God gives things names in Gen 1). Finally, woman is formed. In Genesis 1, God creates by speaking a word, and perhaps out of nothing (although some exegetes see Gen 1 as bringing order to the chaos that already existed rather than producing matter,) creation happens. In Genesis 2, God is always forming out of something - the soil, and then the human's rib.


All these differences lead some exegetes to conclude that we have two separate and different accounts of the beginning of the universe. I think it's an illogical step to try and make them fit each other. The language and style of writing are so different - and that has nothing to do with science.


Then one can throw in other biblical creation accounts, such as Psalms 8; 19, 24, 74, 89, 93, 104; 136; Job 38:1-42:6. We have Wisdom's role in creation: Wisdom 7:22a; 8:4-5; 9:9; Psalm 104:24; Proverbs 3:18; 8:22-31; Jeremiah 10:12; Sirach 1:1-10; 24:1-7. There are multiple pictures of God creating the universe given in scriptures. Genesis 1 and 2 are only two of them.

Thanks for sharing your view. But I don't think they are really different stories, in fact they are from two angles of viewing  One Creation event. Those "differences" that you mentioned above are not convincing.

[John Mundinger]

Perhaps those who do not interpret Genesis as it was interpreted for thousands of years are influenced by thinkers of the past couple hundred years, for example Schleiermacher, who many think initiated the historical-critical method of interpretation.  My personal opinion is it is rather arrogant of man (related to the original sin) to believe he now knows more about events of a few thousand years ago than the people on the scene at the time, but others see it differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schleiermacher

... Fletch

Fletch - you might be surprised to hear that my first exposure to the science of evolution was in grade school which, by the way, was the parochial school of one of the foundational churches in the LCMS.  Moreover, I had further exposure to the science of evolution in high school biology which was in another LCMS school.  I learned at a fairly young age that there is a difference between Spiritual truth and scientific truth.  I also learned that it might not be possible to reconcile Spiritual and scientific truth when the two are apparently incongruent.  I also leaned that reconciliation was not essential to either good theology or good science.

And, please note that confirmation instruction, as taught in that particular LCMS grade school emphasized the significance of God as Creator; the significance of the creation as the handiwork of the Triune God; and, the significance of creation as one aspect of God's ongoing relationship with fallen humanity, especially God's work as MY creator.