Storyteller wrote: Kurieuo wrote:
Storyteller wrote:I have an idea...
All living things contain carbon, right?
Could, then, carbon be the "dirt" that we were all created from?
Maybe it should be from carbon to carbon, rather than dust to dust.
Carbon is the building block of life, so evidently we are all carbon-based.
So, carbon could be what is being referenced then? Or am I just being dumb?
No, you're not being dumb. Beneath your question lies a more important one, and that is how do we know what is a valid or better interpretation of Scripture. This is one many Christians pay little heed to, instead they just go with their feelings of what they feel is right, which often leads to a subjective mess of many misinterpretations and misunderstandings. So then, your question is really asking how can I know whether an idea I have is a fitting interpretation of the text? A very humble question.
There is a rule when interpreting Scripture (the right way as I see it), that what the author wrote can't be usurped by the divine or vice-versa. The only time when we might relax this rule is perhaps with prophecy, although some claim even there that the rule need not be broken. This rule forms a foundation to the historical-grammatical method, safeguards interpreting Scripture with some objectivity rather than anyone's belief or interpretation of Scripture being equally valid. Some after all like to interpret words to suit their fancies, read Scripture to confirm views they already strongly hold to (i.e., confirmation bias), or avoid something they're not comfortable with (e.g., are the days really 24 hours long?).
So then, when God made Adam and Eve from dirt, if God intended it to mean "carbon" then the author would have needed to have known that. You might get around that by saying the author didn't really mean "dust of the ground" but rather intended this phrase to be more symbolic of earthly substance in general which may include carbon, clay, dirt, minerals. There is no reason I see to strangle absolute literalism into the words (often assumed to be the default), to believe it only means dust of the ground, reddish clay or what-have-you. So then you could opt for a looser interpretation, it is viable. HOWEVER, I don't think you can isolate "carbon" alone in and of itself to replace "dust of the ground", I don't just see an option there unless we ignore what is plainly said.