The Pyros go hardcore on Genesis 1


from here


     would hope a few things became apparent to all despite the efforts of a few dedicated individuals to cast as much murk on the issue as possible:


  1. The language of Genesis 1 is not problematic. The style is prose, and the words are straightforward. One has the impression of six normal days of creative activity beginning with 1:1. Exodus 20:11 cements that understanding as being the same as Moses', which means that it was God's intent as well.
  2. Given that Genesis 1 flows right into the rest of the book's sequential narrative, whose genealogies mark it as a tale of millennia and not endless eons, the universe is thousands of years old, not gazillions.
  3. Evidence is not self-interpreting.
  4. We have in Genesis the one and only utterly unimpeachable eyewitness account, with its own interpretive keys to assure that we do not miss the meaning. Words mean things; God spoke to be understood by us (Hebrews 1:1-2); great doubts are not obscuring the text taken on its own terms. Possessing the text, we posses what we need for an interpretive grid for the evidence.
  5. By contrast, the dominant school that has printed up the “I Am the Only Real Scientist” T-shirts for our day is (A) in possession of a tiny fragment of evidence; (B) driven by philosophical and religious pre-commitments which assure misinterpretation of the evidence; and (C) arrogant out of all proportion to reality.
  6. I hope that the TE/OE compromisers learned a very important truth from the sneering visitors. By your compromise, (A) you are not winning them over, but (B) are signalling to them that they are winning you over. They will simply wait you out, until you continue in your process of jettisoning everything the world hates about you as a Christian.
    After all, if they can get you to toss such a straightforward chapter, the rest should be child's play.

    I add this:

  7. It is instructive that many commenters could not tell David apart from a “Christian” old-earther/evolutionist. The contempt towards the Biblical text, and the fawning, unquestioning faith in (today's dominant, self-proclaimed version of) science were indistinguishable to many.

The lesson goes out to all. Some will admit it, some won't.

They're referring to this thread. What do you think?

Leave a Reply

This Post Has One Comment

  1. steve

    A – Without picking apart the language, which I’m not qualified to do, seems to me the importance is the pattern of work followed by rest
    B – And texts aren’t allowed to flow from one mode to another? A newspaper headline is often a clever play on words, but we allow that the following article should be a factual report.
    C – Evidence is not self-interpreting – Meaning what?
    D – Seems we have a history of changing our interpretation of the bible. In the light of events happening nearly 2000 years ago there have been different interpretations of stories in the old testament.  Are we no longer aloud to adjust our interpretations based off new knowledge?  Ok, I’ll allow that we’re not talking about the same magnitude of happenings but it seems to me a fixed interpretation(which is difficult in it’s own right) is a dead interpretation.
    E – Ok, some people are arrogant and think too highly of their own derived beliefs.  Does that discount everything they have to say?
    F – This is just silly
    Also annoying about the referred post and the many comments was the habit of portraying one’s opponents view in such an unsympathetic light.  It’s easy to disagree with a caricature.

Leave a Comment - but please pay careful attention to the house rules