 Posted Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Don't understand that one. Do you mean that the plural means that the first account implies polytheism? That would make it a problem for traditional Christians as well as Christian Scientists. In any case, I think the plural means something more like the "royal we" as when the Queen of England speaks in public (or used to). Maybe we need a Hebrew language expert, which I'm not, to kick in here. But I don't see why it would pose a problem specifically for CS.
Erol
<< Christian Scientists understand the first account to be the account of the creation of the real, spiritual man, and the second account to be a record of the development of the material illusion.
Hmmm...if one is free to pick and choose, why can't one decide that the second account of creation describes the "real" creation and the first account describes the illusion? After all, the second account is consistent with the evil we see in the world, and the first account presents a God that is inconsistent with the CS concept of God in that it presents him as saying "let us make man in our image, in our likeness" (Gen 1:26, emphasis added). >>
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:36 PM
|
|
|
|
My point is that, if the Bible is "cut and paste," people can always find reasons to accept one account and reject the other as false. The first account of creation is just as outratgeous as the second, when you really think about it.
God is in the business of doing "outrageous" things that only he can do.
|
|
|
|