Genesis and the Natural World

[Caladan]

Ok fair enough, i dont disagree with anything you say really, its very sensible.
But i still think that as a piece of religious text, its interpretation by some is unfortunately literal, which is one issue i have with the mentality that does go along with much of organised religion. Its in the context of this status i worry about the content. I have a lot of time and respect for the richness of literature of old, and as you touched on, supernatural elements need not enter the picture to appreciate them. But i think they often do, and its in this context i raise concern.

Alex

This problem exist. but to what extent is it rooted in the Bible and not in lack of coherent interpretation or even ignorance of the scriptures?
now, that's another interesting question.
obviously we all hold different views on scriptures. many people, if possible will justify their way of life or their philosophy with their own scripture if possible. not much of a surprise there.

 

[Quagmire]

One word in this passage I'm curious about is "replenish":

And God said Adam and Eve, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the foul of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth.

Wonder what it applies to. I mean, if it's talking about replenishing the world with people, as the context might suggest, then it would seem to be suggesting that were other people at one time.

Since, IMO, that's an unlikely interpretation, the only other application would be as an instruction to "replenish" what we take from the earth.

In other words, the passage isn't a prescription for exploitation so much as an injunction to oversee the earth responsibly.

 

[Quagmire]

One word in this passage I'm curious about is "replenish":



Wonder what it applies to. I mean, if it's talking about replenishing the world with people, as the context might suggest, then it would seem to be suggesting that were other people at one time.

Since, IMO, that's an unlikely interpretation, the only other application would be as an instruction to "replenish" what we take from the earth.

In other words, the passage isn't a prescription for exploitation so much as an injunction to oversee the earth responsibly.

Never mind : to borrow Jay's link from another thread: Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

 

[Alex_G]

This problem exist. but to what extent is it rooted in the Bible and not in lack of coherent interpretation or even ignorance of the scriptures?
now, that's another interesting question.
obviously we all hold different views on scriptures. many people, if possible will justify their way of life or their philosophy with their own scripture if possible. not much of a surprise there.

Yeah that’s an interesting point to raise. I guess i might say that such literal interpretation and activity surrounding the Bible as a religious text is not found nearly as much in other historical writings that don’t hold a religious significance, indicating some responsible part to play by the text and its proponents.
Im sure the right answer is that its a balance between the sensibilities of the people interpreting and that of the significance of the text and its responsibilities as well.


Alex