From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genesis (was Deja vu all over again)
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:19:50 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@hydra.UUCP (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

In article <emc.717533486@ro> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>In <1126@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>It depends on where you start.  If you take the Bible as a source of
>>*spiritual* truth, then Genesis is *not* (in this sense) proven wrong
>>by the scientific evidence.  Of course this is not a *literal* reading
>>of Genesis, but it does retain the *message* in it.
>
>>Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
>>a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
>>Bible.  Yes, it does open the way to doubt the historical reality of 
>>other passages, but so what?  The historical reality is not what the 
>>book is about any way.
>
>Please no more of this crap.  What gives you the right to dissect 
>the texts in this manner?

I could make the same observation about your (presumably "literal")
interpretation of the Scriptures. The creationists' literalist approach
makes Genesis a battleground over the *mechanics* (the details, the
mechanisms) of creation. Is that really what God is telling us about in
Genesis? The creation/evolution problem poses a real danger of submerging 
the Spiritual truth of Genesis in a battle over mechanics.

>How do you discern this "spiritual" truth from the "historical" truth?  
>Are the former marked in red letters?

You have just a few chapters which describe how God created the 
heavens and the earth. That's not enough even to describe even 
the creationists' creation scenario in detail.  
God has given us an outline in Genesis. 
It's for scientists to fill in the outline by studying nature. 
If scientists' conclusions don't
match a particular interpretation of scripture, it seems far more 
honest to me to be willing to simply admit that a conflict exists, 
until we understand nature, scripture, or both, better. 
The creationist approach of mandating that the data must be 
interpreted in a particular manner, is not intellectually honest.  
    
>Or is spiritual truth
>considered to be what is not in conflict with your present morality?

Spiritual truth is what the Holy Spirit teaches me from the 
scriptures about the attributes of God, How I relate to Him, 
and what He requires of me.  Spiritual truth convicts me that I 
am a sinner and need the Savior, and that His death
on the cross is the *only* thing that makes me acceptable before God. 
If that conflicts with my present morality, then my present morality 
is wrong and I must ask Him to change me and obey what He tells me to do.

Spiritual truth is what convicts people that they are sinners and need the
Savior. Spiritual truth is what *does* conflict with my present morality. 
BTW, most of the posters on this group are interested in the 
*scientific* issues surrounding origins.  Science is a "low level" 
tool that is not appropriate for dealing with "high level" concepts 
such as morality.  So you are not likely to achieve much satisfaction 
mixing science and morality on this group.

>The writers of Genesis would have turned in their graves if they knew
>how their simple writings meant to convey their world view were being
>so sterilized.

What is more important in the Scriptures? 
The exact natural history of earth
with its geology, plant and animal life, or the sinfulness 
of man, his need for a savior, and the fact that God has 
provided that Savior?
>
>>sarima@teradata.com                   (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>>  or
>>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
>--
>Eli Chiprout
>Dept. of Electronics
>Carleton University
>emc@doe.carleton.ca

Bill Hamilton
GM Research and Environmental Staff
hamilton@gmr.com