The fundamental question for YECs.

[technomage]

I want to make perfectly clear that ALL PARTIES (myself definitely included) MUST maintain courtesy and civil discourse at all times in this thread.

3- This proposition (that Genesis is not literal account) is simply highly unlikely. So unlikely that it demands demonstration; which demonstration would be impossible, I should think.

Why not? What prevents God from presenting the Creation account as a parable, rather than as a technical description?

[rogero]

I want to make perfectly clear that ALL PARTIES (myself definitely included) MUST maintain courtesy and civil discourse at all times in this thread.

Does this apply even to me??? Why, I'm outraged...!!!

I defy anyone here to demonstrate where I've been other than civil and courteous in discourse! (~~cough~~ ~~sputter~~).

Why not? What prevents God from presenting the Creation account as a parable, rather than as a technical description?

Nothing that I can see. In fact to me a theological allegorical reading of Genesis 1-11 is the simple-plain-straightforward-clear-even-to-a-child (SPSFCETAC) interpretation of this Bronze Age text.

That God creates is the most important truth -- can not the most ardent Fundamentalist agree with this?

That God creates mediatedly using existing matter and natural agency (ex veterae) is also clear. That humans have a special relationship with God that is quite incomplete due to something (the animal human nature in conflict with an higher altruistic spiritual calling?) is another. Taking the historico-critical approach, it's also quite possible that the six days of work/rest on the seventh is a didactic on the Sabbath rest in the Jewish law. Woman was created from the side of Man (Adam), not the head or foot. Woman is also in God's image.

Gosh, there are so many beautiful theological points that could be extracted from this lovely poetic allegory on divine Creation. It seems to me so Neanderthalic to force the heavy-handed Fundamentalist historico-grammatical approach. Let alone that the latter doesn't even make sense to me. Of course, one could argue that I am a backsliding Christian that has fallen from grace (I hope and pray this isn't true!) and that I (~~shudder~~) have had several decades of indoctrination (through coursework and teaching) in scientific method and mainstream dealings with actual data about Creation itself (sorry about the capitalization my dear skeptic friends!).

I seriously don't see where and why the Fundies have a problem with this kind of analysis? Does it affect the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection? Does it affect the Theology of the Cross, or some such similar theology?

R

[oxmixmudd]

Does this apply even to me??? Why, I'm outraged...!!!

I defy anyone here to demonstrate where I've been other than civil and courteous in discourse! (~~cough~~ ~~sputter~~).



Nothing that I can see. In fact to me a theological allegorical reading of Genesis 1-11 is the simple-plain-straightforward-clear-even-to-a-child (SPSFCETAC) interpretation of this Bronze Age text.

That God creates is the most important truth -- can not the most ardent Fundamentalist agree with this?

That God creates mediatedly using existing matter and natural agency (ex veterae) is also clear. That humans have a special relationship with God that is quite incomplete due to something (the animal human nature in conflict with an higher altruistic spiritual calling?) is another. Taking the historico-critical approach, it's also quite possible that the six days of work/rest on the seventh is a didactic on the Sabbath rest in the Jewish law. Woman was created from the side of Man (Adam), not the head or foot. Woman is also in God's image.

Gosh, there are so many beautiful theological points that could be extracted from this lovely poetic allegory on divine Creation. It seems to me so Neanderthalic to force the heavy-handed Fundamentalist historico-grammatical approach. Let alone that the latter doesn't even make sense to me. Of course, one could argue that I am a backsliding Christian that has fallen from grace (I hope and pray this isn't true!) and that I (~~shudder~~) have had several decades of indoctrination (through coursework and teaching) in scientific method and mainstream dealings with actual data about Creation itself (sorry about the capitalization my dear skeptic friends!).

I seriously don't see where and why the Fundies have a problem with this kind of analysis? Does it affect the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection? Does it affect the Theology of the Cross, or some such similar theology?

R

I still have my questions on all this - but as long as one doesn't start deciding the Bible is not God breathed or that miracles don't happen or etc I don't see a problem with it. Fundamentally, you are saying in your view this is God's intent for the passage. It reamains His word, a divine, not a human construct - yes?


Jim

[jason]

Why not? What prevents God from presenting the Creation account as a parable, rather than as a technical description?

Hi Justin,

I'm not sure this is the right question to ask.

After all, Reasons To Believe, or even Glenn, would contend that there understanding of Genesis is a technical account rather than a parable. In spite of what some detractors have claimed.

Jason

[rogero]

I still have my questions on all this - but as long as one doesn't start deciding the Bible is not God breathed or that miracles don't happen or etc I don't see a problem with it. Fundamentally, you are saying in your view this is God's intent for the passage. It reamains His word, a divine, not a human construct - yes?


Jim

Yes, of course. That's the primary point. God is communicating theological truth. The exact physical interpretation is a matter of the current culture. As long as one can accept a distillation of the essence of theological truth from the text (that God creates, etc.), I don't see what the problem is for orthodoxy -- John 1:1-14, Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, etc.

Granted, I'm sure some YECs will try to force some NT passages to support a "literal" (whatever the heck that means) interpretation of Genesis -- Jesus' teaching on divorce, etc. -- a clearly out-of-context shoehorning of the text. And of this course the heavy-handed YEC view ignores the possible Christological ideas such as kenosis and accomodation. Overall, they ignore the theological message in favor of a cultic adherence to an interpretation they sadly misinterpret.

R

P.S. The miracles described in Scripture, which have targeted spiritual purpose, are of a completely different kind than the YEC would espouse to make Earth and Cosmos look Ga+ when they're really circa 6Ka.

No, don't worry Jimmy -- I still believe in miracles and that Scripture is God-breathed. I do have some questions about the Canonical books, since I really do love the RC Deuterocanon, although I realize it may not be as "God-breathed" as the rest of Scripture. And of course the issue is whether "God-breathed" means "historical narrative" in any sense.

[shunyadragon]

Does this apply even to me??? Why, I'm outraged...!!!

I defy anyone here to demonstrate where I've been other than civil and courteous in discourse! (~~cough~~ ~~sputter~~).



Nothing that I can see. In fact to me a theological allegorical reading of Genesis 1-11 is the simple-plain-straightforward-clear-even-to-a-child (SPSFCETAC) interpretation of this Bronze Age text.

That God creates is the most important truth -- can not the most ardent Fundamentalist agree with this?

That God creates mediatedly using existing matter and natural agency (ex veterae) is also clear. That humans have a special relationship with God that is quite incomplete due to something (the animal human nature in conflict with an higher altruistic spiritual calling?) is another. Taking the historico-critical approach, it's also quite possible that the six days of work/rest on the seventh is a didactic on the Sabbath rest in the Jewish law. Woman was created from the side of Man (Adam), not the head or foot. Woman is also in God's image.

Gosh, there are so many beautiful theological points that could be extracted from this lovely poetic allegory on divine Creation. It seems to me so Neanderthalic to force the heavy-handed Fundamentalist historico-grammatical approach. Let alone that the latter doesn't even make sense to me. Of course, one could argue that I am a backsliding Christian that has fallen from grace (I hope and pray this isn't true!) and that I (~~shudder~~) have had several decades of indoctrination (through coursework and teaching) in scientific method and mainstream dealings with actual data about Creation itself (sorry about the capitalization my dear skeptic friends!).

I seriously don't see where and why the Fundies have a problem with this kind of analysis? Does it affect the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection? Does it affect the Theology of the Cross, or some such similar theology?

R

I believe that the reasons the fundimentalist Christian approach is uncomfortable with the scientific worldview are grounded deeper than just the need for a literal interpretation of genesis as God's word rejecting scientific evolution.

If you look at the time line and the dimensions of the universe that science protrays based on our current knowledge and where we fit into the picture, we are are unbelievably dwarfed on a time and space scale that is overwelming to a Biblical worldview that places humanity, we, at the hub of life and the earth at the hub of existence. We end up to be a molecule on a dust bunny in the corner of the vaste stage we call the universe. Even when we are placed on the time and space scalle with the global history of humanity the infrastructure of the Biblical worldview has too many cracks. This Biblical worldview then collapses like a house of cards. Many Christians in the sciences who accept this vasteness of time and space have knee jerk reactions of denial when considering the possibility of other living worlds and intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. It is vastely difficult to live in two worlds and and be continually making amended patchwork compromises that result will constantly face Gordian knot issues when called home to the reality of the worldview portrayed in Biblical scripture.

[technomage]

Hi Justin,

I'm not sure this is the right question to ask.

After all, Reasons To Believe, or even Glenn, would contend that there understanding of Genesis is a technical account rather than a parable. In spite of what some detractors have claimed.

Well, Jason, I'm not asking Glenn or Greg--I'm asking YECs.

We already know, from other studies of Hebrew and ANE literature, that mythic parables are quite common in ANE cultures--look at the Book of Enoch, the Gilgamesh Epic, or the Creation myths of Babylon and Egypt. They weren't intended to be technical accounts--they were intended to connect the world around them with their Gods and their culture.

Why is the Genesis account so far out of the cultural norm? Conversely, since a non-literal Genesis affects no doctrines (even including inerrancy),
what prevents this account from being a culturally-based parable?

[technomage]

Does this apply even to me??? Why, I'm outraged...!!!

I defy anyone here to demonstrate where I've been other than civil and courteous in discourse! (~~cough~~ ~~sputter~~).

*snicker* *snort* *snicker*

[lfellows]

Well, Jason, I'm not asking Glenn or Greg--I'm asking YECs.

We already know, from other studies of Hebrew and ANE literature, that mythic parables are quite common in ANE cultures--look at the Book of Enoch, the Gilgamesh Epic, or the Creation myths of Babylon and Egypt. They weren't intended to be technical accounts--they were intended to connect the world around them with their Gods and their culture.

Why is the Genesis account so far out of the cultural norm? Conversely, since a non-literal Genesis affects no doctrines (even including inerrancy),
what prevents this account from being a culturally-based parable?

If the Bible is God-breathed, then we need to be careful to hear what God wished to communicate to us and not what we want to believe. Myth may have a kernel of truth, but noone would mistake it as truth. Examinations of the creation acount and the flood account in Genesis show that they bear none of the characteristics of myth. Such examinations also reveal that the language is structured in a historical narative, not poetry or parable.

Does seeing Genesis 1 - 11 as other then historical narative present a problem? I believe it causes a very serious problem by undermining the Fall as the basis for the problems in the world: both social and physical. It seems a plain reading of Genesis is necessary to understand the reason why corruption (physical and spiritual) reign in this world. That also seems to explain our need for salvation, and God's provision for our salvation through Jesus Christ.

[technomage]

Examinations of the creation acount and the flood account in Genesis show that they bear none of the characteristics of myth. Such examinations also reveal that the language is structured in a historical narative, not poetry or parable.

Well, what do you consider to be the "characteristics of myth?" And what are the defining marks between narrative and parable? (And if you have to get technical, please feel free--I have enough Hebrew to follow along.)

I believe it causes a very serious problem by undermining the Fall as the basis for the problems in the world: both social and physical.

And I guess my problem with that assesment is if we take Genesis as parable, the physical and spiritual problems still remain: Genesis, then, becomes a cultural explanation of these problems without losing any impact or necessity.

[runecrow]

Why not? What prevents God from presenting the Creation account as a parable, rather than as a technical description?

I have a prose narrative written in exactly the same style and structure as every Hebrew prose narrative. This being the case, isn't the question really mine? That is, shouldn't it be my right to ask, "Why should I then understand this as a parable?" The style and structure says 'historical narrative'. Then, that is the most likely. If I am to look at this as something that is not as likely, I would need a justifiable reason to do so.

Let me ask, then, is the Exodus a parable? The giving of the law at Mount Sinai, a parable? The wandering in the wilderness. Parable? The reign of Asa. Parable? Why not? If Genesis 1 is parable, what about Genesis 2? 3? 6?

How are you determining what is parable and what is not? By what criteria?

But, what I do note is that the scripture plainly states when a parable is being used. "Job continued his parable..." "And Balaam took up this parable..." "Go and speak this parable to the king of Babylon..." "And Jesus spoke a parable...". These are only a few of the cases of such in scripture and it seems that God is directly informing the reader of a special case, and not leaving this up to the decision of the reader. It seems that God wants what He says to be understood by those seeking to understand.

But, look at each of these parables. Do they read like Genesis 1? No. One has only to read the parables of Solomon. Look at Proverbs (parables) 8. Is it similar to Genesis 1? No, it isn't. Look at Exodus 8. Is it similar to Genesis 1? Yes, it is.

So, isn't the question really, why should I consider this as a parable? It is the same as asking me, "Why don't you accept the very weak argument as the very strong argument?"

Also, I feel this must continually be brought up. Exodus 20 (prose narrative or parable?) has the Lord specifically stating 'yom for yom' in relation to the work of the Israelites. Now, I have met with objections to this very plain statement myraid times, but they are unacceptable. A statement which creates a parallel in comparison must necessarily create an equality in the terms, otherwise there is no communication at all.

"I worked six days, you work six days"

How do I understand this? However I understand the former, I must equally understand the latter. If I understand the former as "ages" I must understand the latter as "ages". If I understand the former as "God days" I must understand the latter as "God days". If I understand the former as "24 hours" I must understand the latter as "24 hours".

The terms must be mutually equivalent or there is no communication, and there is no parallel. However, I do know that the Israelites understood the latter as "days" and the pattern of their work shows the equivalent pattern of the work of God.

[oxmixmudd]

I have a prose narrative written in exactly the same style and structure as every Hebrew prose narrative. This being the case, isn't the question really mine? That is, shouldn't it be my right to ask, "Why should I then understand this as a parable?" The style and structure says 'historical narrative'. Then, that is the most likely. If I am to look at this as something that is not as likely, I would need a justifiable reason to do so.

Let me ask, then, is the Exodus a parable? The giving of the law at Mount Sinai, a parable? The wandering in the wilderness. Parable? The reign of Asa. Parable? Why not? If Genesis 1 is parable, what about Genesis 2? 3? 6?

How are you determining what is parable and what is not? By what criteria?

But, what I do note is that the scripture plainly states when a parable is being used. "Job continued his parable..." "And Balaam took up this parable..." "Go and speak this parable to the king of Babylon..." "And Jesus spoke a parable...". These are only a few of the cases of such in scripture and it seems that God is directly informing the reader of a special case, and not leaving this up to the decision of the reader. It seems that God wants what He says to be understood by those seeking to understand.

But, look at each of these parables. Do they read like Genesis 1? No. One has only to read the parables of Solomon. Look at Proverbs (parables) 8. Is it similar to Genesis 1? No, it isn't. Look at Exodus 8. Is it similar to Genesis 1? Yes, it is.

So, isn't the question really, why should I consider this as a parable? It is the same as asking me, "Why don't you accept the very weak argument as the very strong argument?"

Also, I feel this must continually be brought up. Exodus 20 (prose narrative or parable?) has the Lord specifically stating 'yom for yom' in relation to the work of the Israelites. Now, I have met with objections to this very plain statement myraid times, but they are unacceptable. A statement which creates a parallel in comparison must necessarily create an equality in the terms, otherwise there is no communication at all.

"I worked six days, you work six days"

How do I understand this? However I understand the former, I must equally understand the latter. If I understand the former as "ages" I must understand the latter as "ages". If I understand the former as "God days" I must understand the latter as "God days". If I understand the former as "24 hours" I must understand the latter as "24 hours".

The terms must be mutually equivalent or there is no communication, and there is no parallel. However, I do know that the Israelites understood the latter as "days" and the pattern of their work shows the equivalent pattern of the work of God.

I think you are just plain wrong here. The meaning of day (for God) is open even in Exodus 20. When he says 'as he did', His days can be literal or figurative. Our days in the Exodus reference are 24 hour days to be sure, But His days, in both the Exodus reference and the Genesis account must only be equivalent to themselves. If figurative in Genesis, then figurative in Exodus. If literal in Genesis, then literal in Exodus. They do not have to be the same as our day. Other scripture indicates His days ARE NOT the same as ours, most notably Psalm 93, which puts the reference clearly in the context of creation.


Jim

[runecrow]

I think you are just plain wrong here. The meaning of day (for God) is open even in Exodus 20. When he says 'as he did', His days can be literal or figurative. Our days in the Exodus reference are 24 hour days to be sure, But His days, in both the Exodus reference and the Genesis account must only be equivalent to themselves. If figurative in Genesis, then figurative in Exodus. If literal in Genesis, then literal in Exodus. They do not have to be the same as our day. Other scripture indicates His days ARE NOT the same as ours, most notably Psalm 93, which puts the reference clearly in the context of creation.

Psalm 93 is a psalm and not a prose narrative. Also, you're adding suffixes into the text where no suffixes exist. God didn't say, "I worked six of my days, you work six of your days". By saying, "I worked six days- you work six days" a clear parallel is made and the two terms are identical in definition. If not, the statement is nonsensical.

I would also like to ask something. I was going to create another thread but figured there were enough of these threads already, so I would pose this here.

Now, Genesis 5:3 states that Adam had been alive for 130 years when Seth was born. The question obviously arises, shouldn't Adam have been, say, a few hundred million years old by this point? I know that one "God day" had passed since the creation of Adam (perhaps even two, if we count the "God day" that Adam was created upon). So, how is it that Adam was only alive 130 years after one (perhaps even two) complete "God days" had passed?

[Meh_Gerbil]

I want to make perfectly clear that ALL PARTIES (myself definitely included) MUST maintain courtesy and civil discourse at all times in this thread.

Why not? What prevents God from presenting the Creation account as a parable, rather than as a technical description?

I don't have a problem with G_d doing it either way, to be honest.
I'm YEC as a default value -- and in large part because I think evolutionists have taken things way too far.

[jason]

Well, Jason, I'm not asking Glenn or Greg--I'm asking YECs.

Thats fine, i'm just noting that others would contend there understanding is every bit as "literal" as the understanding of the YEC. I think that is important to rememver.

Why is the Genesis account so far out of the cultural norm? Conversely, since a non-literal Genesis affects no doctrines (even including inerrancy),
what prevents this account from being a culturally-based parable?

Actually that is not necessarily true. There is one crucial part of the Genesis account, the Fall, that needs to be literal in some very important senses.

Jason