Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I find it kind of weird that so many people on PB are young earthers. When I attended Westminster Seminary, I don't recall any members of the faculty holding the literal 24 hr day position. The framework view was predominant. I wonder who is more out of step with the mainstream of conservative Reformed folks today. PB or WTS? At any rate, Meredith Kline's classic WTS journal article "Because It Had Not Rained" is a must read, even if you disagree:
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/kline_notrained_wtj.pdf
Thanks for clarifying, I am still muddle-headed but that's my fault. I'm glad to hear you affirm the plain reading of the text.Hi Michael. I believe in a young six day creation. My proposal is neither "Day-age", "Analogical" or "Framework". It fits none of those flawed propositions. It is, simply:I disagree ...
....
I hope this has helped to clarify what I was trying to say.
Hey brother Felipe,Brothers, how would you reconcile the use of days as a time descriptor in Genesis against what Peter teaches us in 2 Peter 3? Know that I ask genuinely.
Peter tells us: "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."
I can read the word "days" in Genesis as literal, but as for the actual time that fits into a Genesis "day", I cannot but think that it could either a 24-hour day or an undefined period of time that could span thousands of years. Ultimately, for myself, whether God made the earth in six days or across thousands (or millions of years), it was still His doing and therefore to His glory.
I welcome any further discussion or explanation on this point.
I like Norm would love to hear from some of the theistic evolutionists.
Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.
Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.
The problem is that Genesis 2 seems to include the creation of some things on day 6 (if it is day 6) that belong to day 4. As I said, the reasons for my holding the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 lightly are exegetical. The main narrative starts in Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 as a literary/theological prologue.
I like Norm would love to hear from some of the theistic evolutionists.
I'm kind of taken aback that theistic evolutionists have joined the PB.
I like Norm would love to hear from some of the theistic evolutionists.
I'm kind of taken aback that theistic evolutionists have joined the PB.
Sorry. I don't consider myself a theistic evolutionist anymore but I was years ago when I joined PB until six months ago or so. Though I think evolution of a sort has and is happening I don't believe it explains our origins. Any theory, evolutionary or otherwise that doesn't permit the historical Adam and Eve of which I've always believed since before I was a believer, is impossible. Since I am not a 10K YO man by default that puts me in OE though I considered selecting "not sure." Where unbelievers see the observations of Darwin, Einstein, Hubble, Miller-Urey, Crick and so forth as proof of godlessness I've always gone the other direction.
Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.
The problem is that Genesis 2 seems to include the creation of some things on day 6 (if it is day 6) that belong to day 4. As I said, the reasons for my holding the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 lightly are exegetical. The main narrative starts in Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 as a literary/theological prologue.
Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.
The problem is that Genesis 2 seems to include the creation of some things on day 6 (if it is day 6) that belong to day 4. As I said, the reasons for my holding the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 lightly are exegetical. The main narrative starts in Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 as a literary/theological prologue.
John Byl answers this here: bylogos: Genesis versus Dr. Tim Keller
I think it's details like Genesis 2:5 - such a prosaic explanation as to why agriculture had not been developed by Man, and other aspects of the earlier chapters of Genesis, if it were necessary, that give the lie to the early chapters of Genesis being mythology. Is it of the character of myth to go into such mundane explanations about such mundane first parents? I'm not here saying that you believe Genesis is myth, Philip; just raising another point.
C.S. Lewis somewhere compared the Gospels as literature with myths in order to show that e.g. characters as prosaic as Peter, James and John, and Mary, Martha and Lazarus were not characteristic of the genre of mythology.
Here's an article by Donald MacLeod on that: Is Jesus a myth?
Are there any boooks which contrast Genesis for genre with the pagan creation and flood myths?
There are hermeneutics that would allow for a non-literal reading of Genesis which renders it neither wrong nor "rubbish." There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.
There are hermeneutics that would allow for a non-literal reading of Genesis which renders it neither wrong nor "rubbish." There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.
There are hermeneutics that would allow for a non-literal reading of Genesis which renders it neither wrong nor "rubbish." There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.
What is the genre of the early chapters of Genesis, if not plain history?
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.