Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

[rogue06]

So is the New Adam, who redeemed mankind from the consequences of the Old Adam’s disobedience, also just "poetry"?



Actually, the fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories with Jesus as a mythical figure...instead of being a literal history. So it’s not a new phenomenon and it’s a perfectly valid position to take given the evidence...or lack thereof.

IIRC, Fortunatianus saw various events described as having symbolic meaning not that they were fictitious stories.

[rogue06]

I see. So where would you say that the poetry in genesis ends and the history begins? Besides that, being poetic doesn't make it not a myth.

So say you. Anyway, regardless of whether it is poetry or prose, the fact remains that the beginning of the universe was 14 billion years ago, and it took all those 14 billion years to pass before humans began to exist. Even the dinasaurs ruled the earth for millions of years prior to the existence of humans. You don't find any of that odd considering God supposedly created it all for humans. 14 billion years!

Time is not an issue for God. So no, it matters not a whit if the universe is 6000 years old or 13.8 billion years old.

[JimL]

Time is not an issue for God. So no, it matters not a whit if the universe is 6000 years old or 13.8 billion years old.

If time isn't an issue for god then it can't be an issue for the universe either, except possibly as an illusion. All of time, past, present, and future can't both exist and not exist, so if all of time exist for god, then it all exists period. Therefore, if that be the case, if all of time exists, then you can kiss the rest of your biblical ideas about free will and sin etc. goodbye. If you think that is wrong, then please give me a cogent explaination as to how time can be both static from one perspective and flowing from another perspective.

[JimL]

IIRC, Fortunatianus saw various events described as having symbolic meaning not that they were fictitious stories.

So what, Fortunatianus was a Christian Bishop, what would you expect him to see in it?

[Zymologist]

So what, Fortunatianus was a Christian Bishop, what would you expect him to see in it?

Did you read what rogue was responding to?

[JimL]

Did you read what rogue was responding to?

Yeah, and Tass is actual correct according to the scholar that uncovered the writings. But I wasn't responding to that I was responding to rogue. If Fortunatianus thought it literal even though he seen the allegorical connection, that wouldn't be out of the ordinary, he was a catholic bishop.

[Tassman]

IIRC, Fortunatianus saw various events described as having symbolic meaning not that they were fictitious stories.

Not really!

"The earliest Latin interpretation of the Gospels has been brought to light by a British academic – and it suggests that readers should not take the Bible literally.

Lost for 1,500 years, the fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories instead of a literal history. Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work, said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from..."

"The approach differs from the trend of biblical literalism adopted by modern evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, which interprets the Bible as the literal word of God which is not open to interpretation. This has been the basis for beliefs such as the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old and that it was created in seven days".

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3373

[Adrift]

You're falling into the same mistake literalist YECs do here. The creation account is poetry, not a science lesson.

The idea that the creation account is poetry is definitely one take, but there are, of course, other takes on the narrative that do not preclude a literal reading, and that do not reject an old earth view. I went into some examples of this a couple of years ago. A modified Historical Creationist view, for example, answers a number of objections that skeptics may have about the Genesis narrative. The Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer, for instance, suggests that the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 1. John Piper's website's summary of Sailhamer's work puts it this way,

Source: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land

On day four, God did not create the sun, moon, and stars (they had been created in the beginning, as we have seen), but declared the purpose for which He had created them. This is made most evident from comparing verse 6, which speaks of God bringing into existence an expanse that had not been there before, and verse 14, which speaks of God's command concerning the heavenly bodies that had been there from the beginning. While the text in verse six clearly says that God brought about an expanse that had not been there before, in verse 14 the syntax is different-which suggests that God is doing something other than bringing about what had not been there before.

Sailhamer writes that the "Hebrew verbal construction in verse 14 is significantly different from verse 6" even though

our English translations don't always reflect that difference. In the Hebrew text of verse 14, God does not say, 'Let there be lights in the expanse to separate the day and night...' as if there were no lights before His command and afterward they came into being [which is the way it was with the expanse in verse 6]. Rather according to the Hebrew text, God said, 'Let the lights in the expanse be for separating the day and night...' God's command, in other words, assumes that the lights already exist in the expanse. To be sure, there has been no mention of these 'lights' earlier in Genesis 1, but their existence is assumed in the expression 'heavens and earth' in Gen 1:1. (131-132).

Thus, on the fourth day God was not creating the sun and stars, but stating the purpose for which he had already created them "in the beginning"-to provide light on the land for man and to be measurements for keeping time. It is amazing that God had His purpose for man in mind eons earlier when He created these heavenly bodies!

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

The idea that the creation account is poetry is definitely one take, but there are, of course, other takes on the narrative that do not preclude a literal reading, and that do not reject an old earth view. I went into some examples of this a couple of years ago. A modified Historical Creationist view, for example, answers a number of objections that skeptics may have about the Genesis narrative. The Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer, for instance, suggests that the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 1. John Piper's website's summary of Sailhamer's work puts it this way,

On day four, God did not create the sun, moon, and stars (they had been created in the beginning, as we have seen), but declared the purpose for which He had created them. This is made most evident from comparing verse 6, which speaks of God bringing into existence an expanse that had not been there before, and verse 14, which speaks of God's command concerning the heavenly bodies that had been there from the beginning. While the text in verse six clearly says that God brought about an expanse that had not been there before, in verse 14 the syntax is different-which suggests that God is doing something other than bringing about what had not been there before.

Sailhamer writes that the "Hebrew verbal construction in verse 14 is significantly different from verse 6" even though
[indent]our English translations don't always reflect that difference. In the Hebrew text of verse 14, God does not say, 'Let there be lights in the expanse to separate the day and night...' as if there were no lights before His command and afterward they came into being [which is the way it was with the expanse in verse 6]. Rather according to the Hebrew text, God said, 'Let the lights in the expanse be for separating the day and night...' God's command, in other words, assumes that the lights already exist in the expanse. To be sure, there has been no mention of these 'lights' earlier in Genesis 1, but their existence is assumed in the expression 'heavens and earth' in Gen 1:1. (131-132).

The Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer was a biblical inerrancist and faculty member of such institutions as Biola University and Gateway Seminary, which holds to literal creationist dogma. Therefore he can be expected to interpret the Genesis creation narratives consistent with his literalist presupposition.

Thus, on the fourth day God was not creating the sun and stars, but stating the purpose for which he had already created them "in the beginning"-to provide light on the land for man and to be measurements for keeping time. It is amazing that God had His purpose for man in mind eons earlier when He created these heavenly bodies![/cite]

Good of God, but overkill somewhat, given that not only is our solar system one of billions of solar systems in the Milky Way Galaxy, but that this galaxy is but one of billions of galaxies in our universe alone.

And all for us.

[Adrift]

The Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer was a biblical inerrancist and faculty member of such institutions as Biola University and Gateway Seminary, which holds to literal creationist dogma. Therefore he can be expected to interpret the Genesis creation narratives consistent with his literalist presupposition.

I've never heard John Sailhamer describe himself as an inerrantist, but even if he was, so what? Tassman, you have an incredibly poor record of positing the genetic fallacy for every hypothesis that rubs you the wrong way. If you want to be taken seriously, deal with John Sailhamer's actual argument. Do you know Hebrew? No you don't. So instead of casually dismissing a reputable Old Testament scholar who has devoted his life to the subject, get off your butt and offer an educated response. Simple dismissal based on "nuh uh" doesn't' earn you any points.

Good of God, but overkill somewhat, given that not only is our solar system one of billions of solar systems in the Milky Way Galaxy, but that this galaxy is but one of billions of galaxies in our universe alone.

And all for us.

What is the argument here exactly? That God is good? Um..ok. I agree. That God is eternal, and that he has all the time in the world?...I also agree.

[Tassman]

I've never heard John Sailhamer describe himself as an inerrantist, but even if he was, so what? Tassman,

For John Sailhamer to on the faculties of Biola University, Gateway Seminary and Dallas Seminary, as he was, he had to be committed to biblical inerrancy, e.g. Dallas’ Mission Statement:

“We believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical...” Annual confirmation required by all faculty members.

Thus Sailhamer’s research will be seen through the prism of literal Creationism. That is his starting point. In short, scholarship based upon biased assumptions.

you have an incredibly poor record of positing the genetic fallacy for every hypothesis that rubs you the wrong way.

YOU have “an incredibly poor record of positing” blame on the other person for every argument that rubs YOU the wrong way”.

What is the argument here exactly? That God is good? Um..ok. I agree. That God is eternal, and that he has all the time in the world?...I also agree.

That’s not the argument. The argument is that the claim: “God had His purpose for man in mind eons earlier when He created these heavenly bodies” (i.e. the sun, moon and stars) is absurd. The utter vastness of the universe renders the argument that Man is the centre and purpose for it all is arrogant, egocentric nonsense.

[Rational Gaze]

So it’s not a new phenomenon and it’s a perfectly valid position to take given the evidence...or lack thereof.

Sure, if you're intellectually inferior, jet lagged, or suffering from massive head trauma.

[Adrift]

For John Sailhamer to on the faculties of Biola University, Gateway Seminary and Dallas Seminary, as he was, he had to be committed to biblical inerrancy, e.g. Dallas’ Mission Statement:

“We believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical...” Annual confirmation required by all faculty members.

Thus Sailhamer’s research will be seen through the prism of literal Creationism. That is his starting point. In short, scholarship based upon biased assumptions.

First of all, one can have signed that confirmation and still not be an inerrantist, so I'm not sure what you think that proves. There are plenty of non-inerrantists who agree that all scripture was given by inspiration of God to holy men who were moved by the Holy Spirit. That comes straight from 2 Peter 1:20-21. A simple Bible believing Christian will have accepted that. But even if it did mean that those who taught at these schools were required to first accept inerrancy, so what? All universities, even the most secular of them, have written and unwritten standards and criteria that they require their faculty members to accept. For instance, as far as I know, Oxford isn't going to allow a holocaust denier on their staff. And if one arrives at a view of inerrancy through their own studies before accepting a position at the university, why shouldn't they sign a mission statement that they agree with? If they don't agree with the statement they can apply to the many universities that don't require acceptance of that particular article. But all of this is a Red Herring as Sailhamer didn't teach at Dallas Theological Seminary. Wikipedia states that he was briefly appointed as a provost there, but resigned before he could begin serving.

YOU have “an incredibly poor record of positing” blame on the other person for every argument that rubs YOU the wrong way”.

I just call it as I see it, and I'm right about this. You're a serial genetic fallacist.

That’s not the argument. The argument is that the claim: “God had His purpose for man in mind eons earlier when He created these heavenly bodies” (i.e. the sun, moon and stars) is absurd.

No it isn't. Gee, that was easy.

The utter vastness of the universe renders the argument that Man is the centre and purpose for it all is arrogant, egocentric nonsense.

Christianity teaches that God is the center and purpose of it all, not man, so, you're wrong about that. And what is the vastness of the universe to an eternal and omniscient being? Stop imagining that you know what it's like to be a god, Tassman.

[Rational Gaze]

I'm also fairly certain that the size of the universe has nothing to do with the worth of mankind.

[JimL]

I'm also fairly certain that the size of the universe has nothing to do with the worth of mankind.

If god created the universe, and specifically the earth, specifically for man, then it is highly unlikely that Dinasaurs would exist and rule the earth millions of years prior to mans existence, or that it would be 14 billion years after its creation before human beings even existed.
And if you are going to make the argument that time is not an issue for god, then you need answer the question that I posed to rogue which he failed to respond to. If time is no issue for god, being that he exist outside of time, then time is no issue for the universe either.

"So, if you believe otherwise then please give a cogent explanation as to how time can be both static and flowing dependent on ones perspective?"