RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
July 17, 2013 at 5:51 pm
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2013 at 5:59 pm by fr0d0.)
Some replies for you DP
1.
The bible isn't meant to teach science. Genesis is not meant to tell us exactly how the universe was created. Rather, it is the demythologizing of the universe. The Israelites had just come out of Egypt when this was written, and its purpose is to show that there are not numerous gods controlling the sun, stars, and all life, but rather it is all the work of God the almighty.
2.
The answer is simple. In Genesis 1, verse 2-5 God created and separated the light between night and day. That light maintained the flora.
3.
To the OP: As you may know, Christians are split. The "mainline" denominations accept the critical approach to scholarship that developed starting in the Reformation and moving into the Enlightenment. For us, the Bible is the account of how God worked with Israel, and then through Jesus and the first generation or two of followers.
As such, we don't see the Bible itself as a revelation, but as records from the people that God worked with. Thus we see Genesis as the "pre-history" of Israel, showing much about their concept of themselves and their relationship with God, but not so much about astronomy and even history.
But a majority of American Christians today are members of more conservative groups, that see the Bible is God's Word, not dictated by him exactly, but representing truth in scientific and historical terms. They have developed interpretations of Genesis that you might not find obvious reading it for yourself, but which show it to be at least self-consistent, and (depending upon the person) consistent with at least much of the scientific view, if not all of it. (E.g. accepting an old earth but rejecting evolution seems to be common.)
If you're interested in exploring Christianity for yourself, I'd be happy to talk with you. I doubt you'd be interested in the conservative approach. If you want to argue with Christians, I'll stay out of it, as the more conservative folks would probably be more satisfying discussion partners.
1.
The bible isn't meant to teach science. Genesis is not meant to tell us exactly how the universe was created. Rather, it is the demythologizing of the universe. The Israelites had just come out of Egypt when this was written, and its purpose is to show that there are not numerous gods controlling the sun, stars, and all life, but rather it is all the work of God the almighty.
2.
The answer is simple. In Genesis 1, verse 2-5 God created and separated the light between night and day. That light maintained the flora.
3.
To the OP: As you may know, Christians are split. The "mainline" denominations accept the critical approach to scholarship that developed starting in the Reformation and moving into the Enlightenment. For us, the Bible is the account of how God worked with Israel, and then through Jesus and the first generation or two of followers.
As such, we don't see the Bible itself as a revelation, but as records from the people that God worked with. Thus we see Genesis as the "pre-history" of Israel, showing much about their concept of themselves and their relationship with God, but not so much about astronomy and even history.
But a majority of American Christians today are members of more conservative groups, that see the Bible is God's Word, not dictated by him exactly, but representing truth in scientific and historical terms. They have developed interpretations of Genesis that you might not find obvious reading it for yourself, but which show it to be at least self-consistent, and (depending upon the person) consistent with at least much of the scientific view, if not all of it. (E.g. accepting an old earth but rejecting evolution seems to be common.)
If you're interested in exploring Christianity for yourself, I'd be happy to talk with you. I doubt you'd be interested in the conservative approach. If you want to argue with Christians, I'll stay out of it, as the more conservative folks would probably be more satisfying discussion partners.
