Group: Who is closer to the truth of the Gospel: Socrates or Rod Parsley?

Kent: Pagan does not mean Occultist, as far as I am concerned.

Russell: Let me give you an example of what “proving Genesis by scientific facts” will do to you. (Or use “modernistic description” if that helps you.) I have a friend who is a serious YE creationist. The most serious one I’ve ever met. He’s totally puzzled by my rejection of what he believes proves the Bible true. He’s devoted to Kent Hovind, and is as well read and conversant on this subject as anyone I’ve ever encountered.

So one day we are having devotions, and he announces that he’s changed his view on Geness 1. I think “This is interesting.” Then he explains his change. Apparently, his previous interpretation of the second day wasn’t literal enough. In case the class has forgotten, the narrative says:

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

(Of course, the ESV is saying “expanse” where other translations say “firmament.”)

My friend said that instead of believing the early earth was covered by a water canopy, he now believed that the entire universe was covered by a water canopy.

Of course, my notion that a prescientific mind found a water canopy the best explanation for a blue sky that deposited rain, etc every so often is a rejection of any modernistic understandings of the text. Making Genesis 1 conform to scientific reality is a bandwagon I will never get on.

I just finished reading Robert Capon’s book “Genesis: The Movie.” The old rebel follows Augustine to say the seven day creation week is how it all existed in the mind of God, not how long it took to spin it all out. I would just say God choose to inspire a prescientific text that comes fully and completely from the roots of a particular ancient culture. It isn’t scientific in any way and it’s violent to try and make it scientific. It tells us God made the universe. And us. It is was very good. It’s a prescientific text with a theological purpose. In the Story/Conversation that is the “Bible,” it’s the way the story is told, so it’s the truth that matters for us. Who needs the vote of scientists or historians to verify anything about it?

I don’t want to be writing about this. I’ll stop. Please read the essays folks.