mm@blake.u.washington.edu (Eric Gorr) (11/05/90)
I am in debate right now with a room mate on how to interpret specifically the account of creation. What I lack the knowledge of is those "experts" within the christian faith which do not support the literial interpretation of the account of creation..... Thanx.. [If you're willing to read something, go to your University library and take a look at the commentaries section. Even public universities normally have lots of commentaries on Genesis. Generally those who do not accept a 7-day creation regard the creation stories as quite frankly myths, however myths that have been used to convey important theological messages. Comparing the Babylonian and other sources with the form the stories take in Gen. will make it clear greatly how the Biblical view differs from the original context of the stories. There is generally little discussion about what the editor actually believed as far as historical accuracy. I think some critics take it for granted that the editor actually believed the literal historicity of the accounts. My preference would be that if you believe the creation stories are mythological, you consider the possibility that the person responsible for putting them in Gen. recognized them as such. This issue has been discussed before, so I'm giving only a capsule. --clh]
crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (11/09/90)
In article <Nov.5.04.59.51.1990.15716@athos.rutgers.edu> mm@blake.u.washington.edu (Eric Gorr) asks a question about the Genesis creation account, and our moderator responds: >[ .... Generally those who do >not accept a 7-day creation regard the creation stories as quite >frankly myths, however myths that have been used to convey important >theological messages. ...] I hope you don't mean to imply that these are the only two alternatives. There are a growing number of Christians who believe that the Genesis account is a serious account of what happened, but that the word "day" doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. In fact, I was once given a copy of an article from a conference on Biblical inerrancy, which showed that this was a valid exegesis of the Hebrew text. (I haven't had time to dig it up, but if there's interest I can try to track down the reference.) Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh [I took Gorr to be asking about interpreters who rejected the accuracy of the account entirely. For a discussion of whether the Gen. account, even after modification of "day", is scientifically tenable, I refer you to talk.origins. I'd be happy to hear discussions on the Hebrew exegesis here. I'm sceptical, but I don't claim knowledge of Hebrew. --clh]
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (11/10/90)
mm@blake.u.washington.edu (Eric Gorr) writes: >I am in debate right now with a room mate on how to interpret specifically >the account of creation. What I lack the knowledge of is those "experts" >within the christian faith which do not support the literial interpretation >of the account of creation..... The problem with previous "literal" interpretations of the Creation account of Genesis is that they contained a fundamental "self-centered" bias, which has lead to an inevitable conflict between science and religion--the endless "Creation versus evolution" debate. But this conflict need not exist. Why is there a "self-centered" bias in the "literal" interpretation of the Creation account? Why did we once believe the earth was flat? Why did we once believe the earth was the center of the Solar System? Why were those who tried to say otherwise subject to persecution? Because anyone could see "literally" that the earth was flat, and that the sun did go around us, no? This does not, however, justify being closed to new knowledge when it does come to our attention... We are responsible for what we choose to believe. The simple fact is that the Creation account in Genesis *is* quite literally true, but this does not mean that it is referring to this small insignificant planet upon which we all must dwell for a time. Instead, the Genesis account describes the *original* Creation, the Creation of the Spiritual Sphere. Or should not the spiritual world also contain that which we see in this world? Land, water, plants, animals, etc.? This material world in which we find ourselves is properly described by the term "Subsequent Creation". So we see very simply that the whole Creation does consist of two fundamental sections: (1) Original (Spiritual) Creation, and (2) Subsequent (Material) Creation. The first of these, the Original Creation, was indeed created directly from out of God. The second, Subsequent Creation, was *not* directly created, but rather subsequently *developed* as a natural consequence of the Original Spiritual Creation. Thus, Creation *and* evolution are both correct concepts within the *whole* of Creation! The Divine Sphere *alone* has existed from all eternity. I don't see that this knowledge should be particularly difficult to grasp, it is only a matter of wanting to see and to understand, and then the pieces do indeed begin to fall into place everywhere to fill in all the gaps. These explanations are based upon my own understanding of the Grail Message, "In the Light of Truth", by Abd-ru-shin, and it is the Grail Message itself (and not me nor anyone else) which is the authoritative source of answers for all questions of a spiritual nature. It has been kindly suggested to me that I should not make such statements, but I have to say what I know to be true. What is good and true in the Bible is only confirmed and explained by the Grail Message, whereas all that is false in the hitherto existing human interpretations must be stripped away. The human spirit can find true liberation and redemption in the truth itself, and by no other means. What is more important than just this? With kind regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801