Rem,
I don’t feel I am reading into the account; what I said was to attack the factual content of the genesis account you must make the assumption that the account was written to provide a detailed account of creation. That is an assumption I don’t believe, genesis was created to tell mankind that they had a creator, and that life started simply and moved to more complex creatures ending with man, that’s it.
From the genesis account it was obvious that things were left out, like the creation of the angles for example. Moses knew about angels but when they were created was never mentioned in the account so this is indicative that the writer was not including everything that was known at the time into the creation scenario this was because the purpose of the genesis account was not an all encompassing detailed account of creation but a brief account to convey a message.
I’m not trying to bend the story to modern science I don’t feel that the genesis account necessarily has anything to do with modern science but sense you bring it up which of my points I gather from the account do you feel is bending science:
(1) The universe had a beginning
(2) The earth had a beginning
(3) Life started on this planet from simple life forms leading to complex
(4) Leading to man
I would be interested to know which of these you feel are on shaky scientific ground.
My claim was it is illogical for people to expect that a perfectly scientifically accurate and brief account of creation should be expected in the bible. I would like to see a brief explanation for the creation for life that would:
(1) BE ACCEPTABLE FOR ALL AGES OF MAN
a. Remember the science that we have to day would be nonsensical to people that lived 100 years ago so if the creation account was written using the science that is understood today it would have made the message unintelligible to man until this point
b. Remember also the our science today will be laughable to the people that live 100 years from know so if genesis was written for us people 100 years from now would find fault with it
So if you feel it would be so easy to provide an accurate listing of the events in creation I say do it, provide one and lets see how long it last, new discoveries will you’re your account outdated in less than 3 years. THAT’S WHY SCIENCE BOOKS ARE REPLACED EVERY FEW YEARS. When you write something you can make it timeless or scientific not both they are mutually exclusive, my point is not special pleading it is a fact of life in the world we live.
As far as putting motives on god, I don’t think you are. We are both making assumptions mine is that the purpose of genesis was not to provide a detailed account of creation, yours is that it was.
To restate my point:
(1) The genesis account was never intended to be a detailed listing of creation
(2) I feel its general flow is accurate
(3) I don’t agree that it is similar to earlier creation stories I have read them and do not see similarities
(4) When you write you make a choice timeless or scientific god made a choice and it was timeless
(5) In the bible you see many cases where people (like Jesus) use metaphor to prove a point this does not make Jesus a liar. The bible was written to deliver a message not teach science.
Jelly
P.S. Many of my points are not new, the ideas of extremely long time periods in genesis date back to 500 A.D..