Re: Genesis and Predictions
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Mon, 09 Nov 1998 09:07:01 -0500 (EST)
At 04:36 AM 11/7/98 -0800, Adam Crowl wrote:
>Glenn's thread on the predictive value of our interpretations of Genesis
>is deinitely stirring the pot, but is it really based on a reasonable
>hermeneutic? Do traditional historical interpretations give us any real
>insight into the physical world?
>Genesis 1-11, if not beyond, really should be seen for what they are -
>folklore/myth - which fulfilled certain cognitive functions for a
>pre-scientific community. The texts contain features that are patently
>absurd and that later writers interpreted non-literally anyway.
>Historical interpretations of the same and conclusions based on those
>interpretations were really derived in times of ignorance and contain
>subtle assumptions that have no scientific meaning today. If anything
>can be salvaged from the thoughts of a previous age it's the theological
>content and its clear reference to us all. All else is superfluous junk.
I believe that the day we know all about the physical universe, then we will
realize that the Genesis account is consistent with our knowledge of how
everything came into being. However, the Genesis account is not sufficient
to lead to that knowledge.