On 31 Dec 2005 at 22:04, Danny Faulkner wrote:
> Dave wrote (in part):
> No, actually SARFATI and his spiritual cohorts teach that
> corporeal death came through sin and that the fall was an
> historical event.
> In other words, trying to reconcile ANY historical interpretation
> of Genesis 1-11 with the FACTS is a waste of time. I'll agree
> with you on that much. But your approach (and that of Sarfati)
> is to attack the facts with all sorts of mendacious arguments.
> That is a DIRECT violation of God's express commandments and thus
> is a sin. If sin is required for salvation, then what does THAT
> say about your deity (and its alleged attitude towards sin).
> Dave, would you please briefly explain your view of the first few chapters of Genesis? I take it from your statements here that you don't view them as history, so w> Danny
Genesis 1 begins with a polemic poem, promoting monotheism (as
opposed to pagan philosophy, which taught that creation was the
product of a committee of sometimes-warring gods). The "days"
are actually a kind of mnemonic device to mark the stanzas and to
help in memorization. The story of the fall is very CLEARLY
allegoric, with its trees having special names and the talking
snake. The more difficult part really is the story of the flood,
which I think is probably a combination of Sumerian mythos with a
kind of monotheistic morality play. It probably DOES reflect a
real, but local, flood. The long ages are an artifact of
switching from months to years--a calendar confusion. The real
history, such as it is, begins with Abraham.
Does the work belong in scripture? Emphatically yes. Is it
literal, scientific history? Emphatically no. Is it necessary
to believe it to be in order to be saved? Such a teaching is the
rankest of heresy!
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/217 - Release Date: 12/30/2005