Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc

[JMOtterman]

The idea that Genesis was written as the ancients experienced it does not hold up. The false presupposition is that Gen. 1-2 is a description of the world as the ancients saw it. Manifestly it is not. The water was separated and the in-between was called "sky". How would that make sense to an ancient any more than someone of today (unless it was always cloudy)? The flood (which was not merely 40 days of rain, but the heavens being opened and the waters of the deep bursting forth) essentially undoes some of the separating in Gen. 1. No Creationist I know of discusses Creation without reference to the flood, because it makes the distinction-- when you're reading Gen. 1 you're NOT reading a description of the world as we (or the ancients) see and experience it. That assumption one way ro the other makes a huge difference. We see and experience the world as the deluge left it. There may be all kinds of arguments for or against a literal reading of Genesis, but the discussion can't even really engage until we begin with admitting that what Genesis 1 describes is not the world as we see it or the world as the ancients saw it. It is a world that no longer exists. Knowing what we're examining affects greatly how we exmaine it.

Peter,

Please continue if you are willing I am curious as to where you are going...

PJ

[Brian Stoffregen]

The water was separated and the in-between was called "sky". How would that make sense to an ancient any more than someone of today (unless it was always cloudy)?

That was precisely their experience/understanding of Sky. It was a firmament, essentially a big blue bowl that separated the waters above it from the oceans and seas below it. Within the bowl there were doors that could be opened to let water (or snow or hail) rain down on the earth.

[EENGELBRECHT]

We see and experience the world as the deluge left it. There may be all kinds of arguments for or against a literal reading of Genesis, but the discussion can't even really engage until we begin with admitting that what Genesis 1 describes is not the world as we see it or the world as the ancients saw it. It is a world that no longer exists. Knowing what we're examining affects greatly how we exmaine it.   

Peter, you're reading the text of Genesis as a narrative that has internal integrity and invites the reader to understand the text in light of itself (a.k.a., narrative criticism). So, you're saying that the writer who recorded the creation in Gn 1 did so after the flood had taken place in Gn 6. The writer would not have seen the pre-flood world but would have recorded what God revealed to him about that world.

If we take the approach that we should interpret Genesis 1 in light of our experience or in light of other ancient literature (which I believe is the approach that Brian is proposing), we may miss an important point that the writer of Genesis makes---in Gn 1 he's writing about something he did not directly experience.

Am I in the ballpark?

In Christ,
EE

[EENGELBRECHT]

I still believe God created the heavens and the earth and that scientists are partly right other wise we wouldn't have disciples like Thomas who ask questions and seek answers through visual accuity.

So then I want you to comprehend and acknowledge the importance of Ockhams Razor "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."  By reason alone I would have to believe in evolution not as Darwin suggested but as a constant process of life and yet I also believe that God is the creator and that God is still creating, God is still involved. 

So then I was reading about Ockham's Razor and found that our dear Dr. Luther also has a Razor to his name what is it?  Is it Justification?  Theology of the Cross?  I know one of you probably know this...

For Lutherans there's this doctrine called sola scriptura, which says we judge doctrine by Scripture alone. I think this is where many folks find trouble in Genesis. They want to satisfy their reason yet also hold to Scripture and then end of with a mixture of modern philosophy and Scripture. In some traditions this is not problem, even expected. But for Lutheran's this is a real problem, since we do not give reason or tradition the same billing as Scripture in matters of doctrine.

In Christ,
EE

[Dan Fienen]

Graffiti from the physics department of a prestigious university:

And God said,
"div D = ρ
div B = 0
curl E = -dB/dt
curl H = dD/dt + J,"
and there was light.

These four equations are Maxwell's equations that, together, form a complete description of the production and interrelation of electric and magnetic fields.  Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon.  Perhaps what God did on the first day of creation was design and define what light would be.  Light sources came later.

Dan

[Charles_Austin]

EENGELBRECHT writes:
But for Lutheran's this is a real problem, since we do not give reason or tradition the same billing as Scripture in matters of doctrine.

I comment:
But neither do we give scripture authority over physics, since it is not intended to be a science text, nor do we elevate its form of "history" over more "historical" approaches to understanding time, events and the world.

[ptmccain]

In other words, we will accept the Bible's claims unless and until we don't want to believe the Scripture's testimony.

[Charles_Austin]

We accept the Bible's claims in teaching us how we are saved. I do not accept the Bible's description of the physical universe or the details on how it was created. This is not a matter of not "wanting" to accept the scripture's "testimony."

[ptmccain]

Our Lord Christ accepted the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and regarded Adam and Eve as real, historic personages, similarly the Apostle St. Paul. How do we work our way past these realities, I wonder?

[hansen]

We accept the Bible's claims in teaching us how we are saved. I do not accept the Bible's description of the physical universe or the details on how it was created. This is not a matter of not "wanting" to accept the scripture's "testimony."

Why accept even that at face value?  Why not presume that the Truth-claims regarding salvation were tainted by the writers' cultural biases, and therefore we should put our own present-day spin on it, dismissing what doesn't fit with what we want to believe (given how doggone suphisticated we is tuday)?

[Gladfelteri]

Our Lord Christ accepted the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and regarded Adam and Eve as real, historic personages, similarly the Apostle St. Paul. How do we work our way past these realities, I wonder?

Exactly!!  How can one say that Jesus (who while truly man, was and is truly God, the Second PErson of the Holy Trinity through whom all things were made, was wrong about the Mosaic Authorship of Genesis, and about Adam and Eve being real, historic people, without either denying his Divinity or putting limits on it?  I agree with ptmccain on this one.

[Charles_Austin]

Mr. Hansen and the archbishop can believe as they state about the Bible and I can consider them part of the Body of Christ. I reject the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch (which includes the account of his death). So can they consider me a part of the Body of Christ?

[Mike Bennett]

Mr. Hansen and the archbishop can believe as they state about the Bible and I can consider them part of the Body of Christ. I reject the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch (which includes the account of his death). So can they consider me a part of the Body of Christ?

Well, Mr. Hansen, the archbishop, Jesus Christ and St. Paul.  I think the latter two add significant luster to the group (no offense intended to Don or the archbishop).

Mike Bennett

[Gladfelteri]

Mr. Hansen and the archbishop can believe as they state about the Bible and I can consider them part of the Body of Christ. I reject the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch (which includes the account of his death). So can they consider me a part of the Body of Christ?

You bet!   

[Charles_Austin]

Good. Then the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is up for discussion among fellow members of the body of Christ.

CMA
Signing off soon to go to the 40th reunion of my seminary class and work at the ELCA assembly in Chicago.
I returned from South America to the death of the patriarch of our parish and a week of Vacation Bible School - 160 kids! Yikes!