Let me just ask this question Ebia, which came first? Science or God? God, obviously. It is unique that the bible begins, not with the creation, but with God. "In the beginning God..." I believe we often skip to the creation part, negating that God sets His groundwork for all of man's observation, and subsequent faith, or lack thereof, on His preexistence. He doesn't need to give the groundwork of scientific observation to prove that He did what He said, nor does He need to allegorize the process. He was before what was made. And He says He made it in six days. There is a grammatical assertion found there that leaves no room for gaps, or other assertions called the "waw consecutive." It implies step by step, immediate acts, not prolonged or set up in any other fashion. God presets His existence, then states that He made things in a daily consecutive fashion over a 6 day period. Which came first? God or science?
Phew. For some reason that reads as though you're dictating it really quickly.
Anyway, it's all based on the assumption that it has to be taken literally. You can't prove that it does based on the assumption that it does - that's circular reasoning.
Steping back a bit
He doesn't need to give the groundwork of scientific observation to prove that He did what He said
No He doesn't need to do anything. But He has left us evidence of how he created everything, and how His creation works, and that evidence is incompatible with a 6 day creation. Either He is lying through creation, or Genesis is myth.
You say that science calls God a liar since it doesn't agree with the creation account. Who then is wrong? God? Or man?
Neither. You are. Well, I guess that's man, but not the men you meant.
I realize that you allegoricalize this passage to ease your mind in accepting it. Many do. But again, their presupposition is that we must look to science and history to determine the validity of scripture. This is a faulty approach to God's Word.
Assuming scripture is meant to be science is the faulty approach.
what, exactly, do you mean by "contextually, literally and grammatically relayed"?
That God said, in the context of scripture, in a literal fashion with grammatic support that this is what He did.
Ok, that's what I thought, but I wanted to check.
Now, there are times, as you have stated, that He uses a parable or a story to teach us something. This is contextual in nature. Did these people literally exist? Who knows? The point is the story.
Likewise with Genesis.
However, when it is not presented in that format, but is presented as a fact (such as creation), to assume that this is meant to be understood in the same fashion as the parable of the Good Samaritan is equally absurd.
Who decides which bits are presented as fact, and which as parable. The culture who wrote Genesis/for whom Genesis was originally written would not have distinguished between historical fact and myth, as is evident by looking at the myth and history of similar cultures.
When I read in Tolkien's Return of the King, and I see how Pippen is carried to Minas Tirith on the back of Shadowfax along with Gandalf, I don't need to speculate if they rode on the back of a semi to get there. Why? Because contextually, it is not presented as such.
You don't assume it is a true story though.
I understand the the two pieces are entirely different. What I don't understand, is how someone can choose to approach on piece in the correct manner of logical, reasonable reading, and another in such a careless fashion.
I'm a bit lost with your external references here. Ie, what of the above are you refering to?
The only recourse or purpose is to reckon scripture with their preconceived notions. You brought up that this is what we are doing. I contend. We do so from a contextual, literal, and grammatical approach to scripture. You, do not.
If I've understood what you mean by that, then it seem like a passable summary.
You approach scripture from without, attempting to marry those concepts that are apparently in opposition to scripture, to scripture in a hope of making it fit somehow.
This is a parody of my view of things.
It is either incorrect, or you are. Again, Who came first? God? Or man? Where do we put our trust? If the creation points to something opposite of what God has said in His word, then it must be our observations of that creation that are faulty, not the word of God.
The bible isn't faulty; you're reading it in a way that it was never meant to be read.
so the distinction between what we keep and what we do not isn't clear at all, is it?
Most clear, if you approach it in the fashion I have described. We are free from the Law, but not to commit the sins condemned therein. For example, the Law condemns those who commit adultery. Do we? No. And I do believe rightly so by Christ's own example of the woman caught in adultery. He made the point of everyone of us being as guilty of sin as that poor woman. But He
never said that it wasn't a sin, or that she could freely practice that sin in her christian liberty. Rather, He told her to "sin no more," contextually, in that fashion.
That wasn't the point I wasn't the point I was making here, but lets leave this bit for now rather than get bogged down.
