h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It is often said that the Genesis accounts are 'myth' and 'poetry' and must be interpreted accordingly. I would like to disagree with this and say instead that the Genesis accounts are prophecy, which must be apprehended spiritually and understood by faith.

As it says in Hebrews 11:3, concerning creation, "By faith we understand that the worlds have been made by the speech of God".

"By faith we understand". I believe the Bible reveals an epistemology unique to the Church: "knowing by faith", "understanding by faith".

The treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:3). They are "hidden", so they cannot be explicated by purely rational means, such as literary criticism. They can only be revealed by the Holy Spirit, who has a rationality of His own, which exceeds that of the literary critics.

Signed,

A Bible Christian

Revision!

Re Genesis being 'myth' and 'poetry' etc.

It is often said that the Genesis accounts are 'myth' and 'poetry' and must be interpreted accordingly. I would like to disagree with this and say that the categories of myth and poetry, with their associated methodologies of interpretation, are not sufficient to describe the words of Scripture, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I say instead that the Genesis accounts are prophecy, which must be apprehended spiritually and understood by faith.

As it says in Hebrews 11:3, concerning creation, "By faith we understand that the worlds have been formed by the speech of God".

"By faith we understand". I believe the Bible reveals an epistemology unique to the Church: "knowing by faith", "understanding by faith".

The treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:3). They are "hidden", so they cannot be explicated by purely rational means, such as literary criticism of Biblical texts. They can only be revealed by the Holy Spirit, who has a rationality of His own, which exceeds that of the literary critics.

As Hebrews 11:3 says, "by faith we understand that the worlds have been formed by the speech of God, so that what is seen was not made out of visible things".

Therefore any account of creation which only relies on "what is seen", will necessarily be incomplete. Science by definition can only describe "what is seen", and considers "what is seen" as fundamental to its methods and accounts; whereas the Bible reveals that fundamental to the visible world are invisible realities and the speech of God. By faith, creationist Christians understand this, and base their accounts on the realities apprehended by faith, not by sight. Not only do the righteous walk by faith and not by sight, they understand and give accounts of things based on faith and not on sight, too. That is why I call myself a creationist. If we, who have the Holy Spirit, only see through a glass darkly, how much more dim is the vision of the atheistic materialistic scientists, who see nothing at all of the hidden realities of God, realities which are nevertheless foundational to the creation and continuing existence of the world? They are missing out on a whole dimension of what they are studying, a foundational dimension. Therefore, I submit, their accounts are necessarily incomplete and untrustworthy.

They may be able to put a rocket on the moon by observation and measurement, but they cannot account for the existence of the moon by those methods.

"They may be able to put a rocket on the moon by observation and measurement, but they cannot account for the existence of the moon by those methods."

I have a lovely picture on my screensaver of a shuttle launch. It is (slightly incongruously, but let that go) captioned: "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."

They are, incontrovertibly, able to put a rocket on the moon by observation and measurement. Your education is incomplete if you think that they cannot account for the existence of the moon - its origins as a fragment of this planet detached by a large impact about 4.5 billion years ago are well understood.

" If we, who have the Holy Spirit, only see through a glass darkly, how much more dim is the vision of the atheistic materialistic scientists, who see nothing at all of the hidden realities of God, realities which are nevertheless foundational to the creation and continuing existence of the world?"

You are using a different definition of word "realities" here. Your "realities" are things going on exclusively inside your own head. If you have any evidence whatever that your "realities" have an existence OUTSIDE your own head, you should present it. You cannot.

"They are missing out on a whole dimension of what they are studying, a foundational dimension. Therefore, I submit, their accounts are necessarily incomplete and untrustworthy."

Their accounts ARE incomplete. They admit this. They are, however, trustworthy, because they admit of verification. If a scientist claims something, he permits, nay, requires, that others corroborate it. If a person of faith claims something, then other persons of faith cannot corroborate it. They have to take it on, er... trust. Faith, you might say.

So I'm presented with two salesmen: the scientist, and the faith-head.

The scientist offers his product out on the table, in full view. I can pick it up, shake it, bang it on the table, poke it, try it on etc, before I buy it. If I buy it and it turns out not to work, he guarantees to replace it with something that does.

The faith head's table is empty. Behind him is a large black bag in which he tells me is his product. I'm not allowed to see it, touch it, smell it, shake it or whatever. I'm not allowed any direct contact with it at all. If I'm dumb enough to buy it, I'm allowed to see the bag - that's all. The only time I can find out if the product even EXISTS is after I die. And there are no refunds.

Who do you trust? Not a difficult question, I think.

God loves you, Twiglet.

Define "God", in this context.

And "love", come to that.

Because often when people say that exact phrase to me, by "God" they mean "my imaginary friend who is a capricious sadist", and by "love", they mean "abusive passive aggressive dependence complex".

Sometimes (rarely), "God loves you" translates as "I am deluded but well-disposed towards people, and am basically one of the harmless ones." If that's you, well, thank you.

Or in this context "God loves you, Twiglet." means 'I have no rational, reasonable, logical reply to what has been posted in reply to my initial post so I'll just write the last chance answer which both says nothing to any rational person but everything to a sky-fairy worshipping one.'

Another one bites the dust.

I'll miss these little threads when this site disappears...I love that feeling of deja vu...