Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.08UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.08UNLIKELY
Fear
0.09UNLIKELY
Joy
0.56LIKELY
Sadness
0.15UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.75LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.58LIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.95LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.44UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.58LIKELY
Agreeableness
0.18UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.63LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
Four views of Genesis 1
Intelligent, honest, Bible-believing, scholarly Christians believe each of these.
Don’t fall into the trap of dividing Christians along these lines . . .
you may find people you respect on the other sides of these lines.
Literal 6-day view
Pros
Is a plain reading
Is not undone by the rest of scripture
High value of humanity and image of God
Cons
Not historical view of the Church (rising in the 1840s and again in the 1970s)
Materialistic view of creation (Focus on God making matter)
Nobody takes it ALL literally.
Figurative approach (Literary Framework)
Pros
“The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of Man.” Westminister Shorter Catechism 3
The Bible doesn’t teach astronomy.
Good evidence in the text of literary styles (3X3 days containing 8 creative acts)
Cons
(Usually) Low view of intended audience.
Risk of undermining image of God and consequences for sin.
Not a plain reading.
Analogous Workweek (modified Day-Age Theory)
Pros
God models an Israelite workweek.
See 10 Commandments.
Cohesive with chapter 2 (God made man before the rainy season).
Length of days not important.
No need to try to reconcile with science.
Keeps a plain reading.
Fits the overall theme of Genesis.
Cons
Materialist view of creation.
Overlooks some details.
Evolutionary Creationism
Pros
Focuses on the genre of Genesis (theological history in a figurative manner).
Preserves inerrancy of Scripture in light of scientific advances.
Compatible with what we see around us.
Cons
Not the historical view of the church.
Influenced by culture.
Less of a framework and more of a way to harmonize Genesis and science.
Materialist view of creation.
Functional view (identify accounts view)
Pros
Focus on the image of God.
Faithful to the Biblical account.
Cosmic temple theme consistent with the rest of Scripture
Cons
Not the historic teaching of the church.
Requires assumptions of ancient thought.
How do you answer the question, “Where do babies come from?”
What is this place?
Are successful people well rested?
Are successful people surrounded by other people?
What do you see?
Too often, we modern folk ask Genesis to answer modern questions, like how old is this water-covered ball that spins at 1000 mph in space while orbiting a nuclear-powered fireball?
But Genesis wasn’t written to us.
It was written for us, but not to us.
It was written to people asking ancient questions.
What are those ancient questions?
You probably didn’t realize that the birds and the bees were created on day 1 … but to tell this story, we need to talk about sex.
What do you see?
As we look, let’s ask ourselves . . . is this how we would tell this story?
What is the sky?
Applications
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9