Creationism that fits.

• Owen Abrey

  • Well, for 25 years I have been considering the idea I first read by Charles Hummel who wrote "The Galileo Connection". I think it plausible because it fits both scientific and biblical world views. It begins by posing a question, what if the creation of man as we know him, in the image of God, was indeed the pinnacle of creation that also included pre-anthropomorphic forms. Maybe 10,000 years ago. It is interesting that I have read something by anthropologist who say something significant happened to the Human brain 7-10,000 years ago.
• 

  38 minutes ago

  Owen Abrey

  • Such newly created creatures, humans as we know them, were different from any other pre-anthro forms especially because they were spiritual beings in the flesh. Could such people be called the "son's of God" for this reason? I have done intense work in the Hebrew, and studied the archaeological perspectives of ancient near-eastern texts. The term "sons of God" was employed by Chaldean and Babylonian 1 texts. We can tell that often a king may be called the "son of god".
• 

  30 minutes ago

  Owen Abrey

  • The Genesis 1 passage of the days of creation, from a hermeneutical perspective is Hebrew Poetry. There is no doubt. Other cultures refer to a creation similar, but also using days as a structure for the poetic forms. Days, 1+4, 2+5, 3+6 are obvious parallelisms. I am convinced by what we learned in hermeneutics together, Christians have misread the text because if failed to recognize the genre in which it was written. If you will recall, it was genre that gave Stronstad his perspective on Acts. Narrative. If you don't get that, you see know problem keeping Acts as a history instead of Luke II.
  • 7 day creationists misread Gen 1. In a way they conveniently forget that Genesis was always a collection of texts. It is the fact that Genesis was compiled this way that makes interpreting it so difficult.
• 

  21 minutes ago

  Owen Abrey

  • If you recall, we learned in hermeneutics is to interpret the text literally when it was meant to be taken literally; and interpret it figuratively when it was meant to be taken figuratively. In 1987, I took an archaeology course from Regent--especially because it was a lecture series given by DJ Wiseman. Who was the general editor for that 3 volume set The Encyclopedia of Biblical Archaeology. We also studied him in Hermeneutics and Stronstad's Arch course--if you took it in.
• 

  13 minutes ago

  Owen Abrey

  • I say all this because it was Wiseman's lectures that detailed among other things, the Genealogies of the OT. There was only a passing reference that the Sons of God could refer to people of OT faith. There is a later passage that said to whom the word of God comes, they are the sons of God. He used that as an OT example of employing the term. It has some interesting implications on many passages where the term is employed.
  • You see why I avoided replying? Any shorter a position would be too easy to dismiss without a 2nd thought.
  • So what does that do? It makes a huge reconciliation with science. It untangles the text from the modernist approach that treats it not as was meant to be understood, but tries a form of revisionism that rewrites it as some sort of scientific work.
  • Therefore, it fits for me to accept old earth creationism as a theory where theology and science *might* over lap without each trying to become an authority in the other's domain. Science stays talking about science--but backs off trying be some sort of theological interpreter.
  • And visa versa.
• 

  3 minutes ago

  Owen Abrey

  • Adam and Eve were created among other forms--say even Neanderthals, their sons married them, the forms changed over time to be anthropic as we know ourselves to be today. They were called the "sons of God". They would be brilliant with 140 plus IQs amidst a population of "men" who's iq's were closer to 50 or 60. They would easily be seen as giants, men of renown who built cities... easily be devolved into polytheistic deities. These, people the off-spring of Adam would carry a lineage now dilute, but was exceptional in their day.
• 

  a few seconds ago

  Owen Abrey

  • OT genealogies have been accepted by serious OT theologians to possibly refer to dynasties. If you had an hour or two I could relay that line of thinking... but I have typed enough. I refuse to go along with theological constructs that break all the rules of hermeneutics thinking themselves to be justified in doing so. Remember Dr. Lim's discussion of Isogesis vs Exegesis?