Believing Genesis

Believing Genesis January 20, 2014

The above is based on a Facebook comment I wrote in response to a question that pitted the Biblical creation account against “Darwinism”:

It is indeed a false dichotomy. Moreover, if you are talking about the details then you have to believe the order in Genesis 1 and the different order in Genesis 2, and you must accept the dome and other such details and not merely pick and choose. But even doing that would not be “believing the Bible” but embracing the knowledge of the world that was available in the Ancient Near East, which the authors of Genesis assumed rather than emphasized.

"I would be interested to know what there is in Nag Hammadi that would lend ..."

Response to Raphael Lataster
"If you use the Nag Hammadi documents as a guide, archon clearly has a negative ..."

Response to Raphael Lataster
"I also loved Archon, and you can play it for free in your web browser: ..."

Response to Raphael Lataster
""Archon" was one of my favorite games on my C64 when I was a kid. ..."

Response to Raphael Lataster

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Though I don’t agree with the argument, I do appreciate the straightforward way you are making it. That is, I see no ridicule, scorn, or mocking for YEC’s in it.

    • Just Sayin’

      That’s right: Hamster never engages in mocking or derision. He’s the epitome of “winsomeness.”

      By the way, the one always demanding explanations hasn’t stated WHY he doesn’t agree with Dr. McGrath’s straightforward logical point.

      • 1) James is imposing a false dichotomy on the reader: either take every phrase literally in Gen 1-2 or none of it can be taken literally. That’s neither realistic nor necessary.

        2) James speaks as if God was communicating in the scientific language of the ANE. That’s an anachronism, for there was no science as we know it in that age.

        • No, I’m not doing either of those things. Are you deliberately misrepresenting me, or is this a symptom of the fact that you only seem to pay the slightest attention to a small fraction of posts? In fact, I’ve often opposed precisely such false antitheses here on this blog. And I’ve stated emphatically that the cosmology of the ANE, including that of the Bible, is not scientific.

          • “Are you deliberately misrepresenting me, or is this a symptom of the fact that you only seem to pay the slightest attention to a small fraction of posts?”

            Neither. I’m giving an honest reaction to what you wrote. I see that you dispute what I’ve said. Well, we’ve at least both had our say.

          • Just Sayin’

            Your “honest” reaction is also an ignorant reaction. Reread what he says and try to understand it. It’s not that complicated.

        • Just Sayin’

          He’s doing neither of those things. Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and slowly reread his many posts on this topic, the better to understand them.