This is a very interesting thread. I'm enjoying the discourse between two deep thinkers -- a lawyer and a scientist -- on the topic of theology. [Whew!]

But the crux of the matter, it seems to me, is interpretation. Since I don't read either of you to be fluent in the original Biblical languages, it seems to me that each of you [us] is dependent upon translations (including the KJV).

Every Bible version is a translation, and is also an interpretation.

So. If we take the 28 Doctrines as a starting point, we can still find ample room for dis-agreement/-cussion/-course.
I enjoy your thread. I don't have the intelligence or training to dig more deeply than you both have gone; but I do admire your candor and your courtesy in expressing your positions.

BTW, this is the type of thread which keeps me coming back to C/A.

Thanks Jeannie, that means a lot to hear.

Quote:

---

If the Bible was talking scientifically, shouldn't it have said 'the earth stopped rotating'? But science was not the purpose of the story, so it was told as it was. I'm saying the same applies to the creation account. You need to argue why the two scriptures are different, not just dismiss the difference based on your 21st century scientific knowledge.

---

The two passages are quite different. Joshua (the book) is concerned with the military conquest of Canaan, and is addressing an audience who would not have witnessed the events, probably one quite a bit later.

see for example Joshua 4:9
9 Joshua set up the twelve stones that had been in the middle of the Jordan at the spot where the priests who carried the ark of the covenant had stood. And they are there to this day.

The phrase "to this day" appears 12 times in the book of Joshua.

IN Chapter 10, Joshua is pursuing his enemy, and needs more daylight. He knows that God can control such things, and requests aid. The author simply records what was witnessed. Whatever the celestial mechanics involved, the sun appeared to remain motionless in the sky.


In Genesis 1-2, you have to ask several questions. Who was this written for? Why did they need it? Why discuss origins at all?

In that context, how would the audience have understood it?

If you want, we can go through all those steps, but the bottom line is this.

Yes, the seven days is a central feature. In a literary sense, it is the architecture of the passage. Yes, the audience for whom it was intended would have understood the seven days to be literal 24 hour periods. It is only our 19th century sensibilities that want to reject the seven literal days.

The entire Genesis account was actually 1)Revolutionary intellectually, and therefore 2) quite shocking.

Furthermore, whether scientists realize it or not, it is at the foundation of science as a discipline. And whether historians recognize it or not, it essentially invented history.

Something to keep in mind:

2 Tim 2:23 “Refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, [why?] knowing that they produce quarrels.”

"Strict Literalism"? Amazing how those snakes have survived all these centuries just eating dirt isn't it?

mel

Ed said (rhymes).
"Yes, the seven days is a central feature. In a literary sense, it is the architecture of the passage. Yes, the audience for whom it was intended would have understood the seven days to be literal 24 hour periods. It is only our 19th century sensibilities that want to reject the seven literal days.

The entire Genesis account was actually 1)Revolutionary intellectually, and therefore 2) quite shocking.

Furthermore, whether scientists realize it or not, it is at the foundation of science as a discipline. And whether historians recognize it or not, it essentially invented history."


gcw said: AMEN

<<What is your personal familiarity with the translation process?>>

Only the experience of reading the Bible in many different translations. I don't claim the ability to personally supply the translations myself.

My "authority" for stating that all versions of the Bible are themselves translations (including the KJV) is either [or both] Jack Provonsha or Graham Maxwell. Their Sabbath school classes were so stimulating to me, back in the '70s and '80s. What I learned from those two Godly men was to study the Scriptures by taking the Bible as a whole--all 66 books; and by saying "But what does it mean?" rather than the "here a little, there a little" method of proof-texting your way to an answer.

I believe the Bible as a whole portrays a picture of God which is more loving and forgiving than that with which I grew up. My faith is not so rules-based now as then. But if I were raising children again, there would of course have to be rules. So it's just where I am in my Christian experience right now. [Speaking of age -- your professor Fred Veltman was in college when I was, at Southern.... So I'm O-L-D!]

Now I'm not prepared to give a total rundown of my understanding of the Scriptures, here and now. But it works for me. I don't spend a lot of time on the "pre-millenial vs. post-millenial" stuff. I'm just a simple Christian who believes, e.g., that God does not require a thousand years to judge each human being's worth, so He won't even take a thousand years to do it--BUT, since He wants all beings in the universe to understand why their loved ones are/are not in the Kingdom, for that reason He provides the Judgment at which time every eye will be able to see for themselves the lives of the judged.