This is a very silly thing to say.Īfter a search of 100 articles on our site, only one could possibly be taken that way-clearly out of context with the rest of the website. I’ve noticed often on your site that you claim that the bible is an “eyewitness” to creation. I don’t know if you’ll use this feedback, seeing as how you’ve shied from several other inquiries I’ve sent in (aw-dawm and ruddy man for instance), but at least reconsider the whole Genesis/witness thing. I think it’s fine to believe whatever you wish about creation, but it is irresponsible to present Genesis or the Bible as a “witness” to creation a generalized account based on limited human understanding? - Yes. And the writer of Genesis lived much too long after creation to be a witness. The writing of Genesis itself is far too removed from the time of creation to be a witness.
This better explains the problems in Genesis, which God would have surely clarified if He ordained and guided the writing of any account of His creation. Instead it is much more plausible that the writer of Genesis merely took initiative (whether by God’s prompting or not) to write down the traditional story of creation handed down from generation to generation. There is no declaration in Genesis that the writer was to write the creation account from the very words of God. You do realize that the bible is simply a collection of stories and writings (which has varied throughout the centuries) and it cannot be “witness” to anything past or present? I assume your point is that God was the witness to His own creation, and that Genesis is allegedly a written account of creation received word for word from God.
0 kommentar(er)
