What I am trying to say is that if reality, modern science and your five senses, tell you one thing and a major translation of the Bible tells you something else, go with your senses.
First, the geological succession. I have been wowed by lavabeds, fossil deposits and continental drift. I was also taken to see the Paluxy River dinosaur and human footprints at the same time movie. But I believe in the geological succession and not in biblical creationism.
I was raised to view events in the Middle East through the lense of the ancient scriptures. I believe in a peace process. I was raised to believe in the superiority of one race over another, one class above another, of middle class status as a blessing from God for being productive members of society.
Whether it is biblical counseling, biblical creationism, biblical archeology or biblical marriages, faith healing or whatever; if it elevates the ancient text above what we know to be true from evidence in front of our very eyes, God will call us to account for that. God has no reward for the parents that pray and do not take their child to the hospital. God has no reward for the wife who obeys her husband and lives with depression and misery. God has no reward for those who use prophecy to predict present day events in the Middle East..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Agreed!
But only an ultra-conservative would take the 'creationism' view as biblical. Its not the text that we elevate above what we now know, but what others (mostly idiots) say about that text. I don't think the average believer needs to explain Genesis 1 and 2 with something so silly as the Gap theory, that's a conservative, literalist thing to do.
I accept the evidence that the universe is billions of years old and my sis, who is also a believer, thinks it is less than 10,000. Obviously, we understand some verses differently.
Perhaps it is that a day to the Lord is like a thousand years. :o)
I don't know!
And I don't know why Christians fight over things they have no way to prove absolutely one way or another.
Sue, I took your post's title here for one at my blog (but somehow another different post is automatically linking to this post - hmmm, I don't know why).
Ah, Sue. I love ya.
(((hugs)))
Rock on. :)
Suzanne,
(Yes, I still read everything you write, and enjoy it all, but have anything useful to add to most of your stuff. I'm sorry for not commenting more. Also, I'm about 3x busier than I used to be.)
I love this post, and the heart that shows through it. Of course, I love almost everything you write. Thank you for continuing to weather the storms and produce such thought-provoking, accurate, convincing stuff.
And thank you for defining the value of real observations over biblical interpretations. Observation must guide interpretation, or we'll head down the path to madness.
I would offer the slight adjustment that much of science is also a presentation of interpretation. Where science directly observes things, we have to be thankful for the correction. Where science interprets, though, scientists can be every bit as religious as I was in my teens. It can be difficult to know exactly whose interpretation is more accurate in some places.
That said, I'm only a young earther about 1 day a month. ;-)
May the Lord bless
Yes, you are right. Much of science is interpretation also. No doubt about that. So what are we to believe? Hmm.
Post a Comment