Order in Genesis 1 [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

grmorton

December 27th 2004, 01:39 PM

No. I know it is hard for you to think along these lines. I appreciate your mind very much, you have facts and figures and all of that, but I think this kind of abstract thinking is hard, perhaps.

No it isn't. There is absolutely no doubt among anthropologists that our modern minds were in place by 50,000 years ago. You can get argument from some if you go further back.

In 1979 an American archaeologist by the name of Thomas Wynn had
published an article which claimed that by 300,000 years ago, the
modern mind was already in place." [/quote]

[cite=Steven Mithen, The Prehistory of the Mind, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1996), p. 36] "Piaget was a psychologist who firmly believed that the mind
is like a computer. According to his theories, the mind runs a
small set of general-purpose programs which control the entry of
new information into the mind, which serve to restructure the
mind so that it passes through a series of developmental phases,
reached when the child is about 12 years old, formal operational
intelligence. In this phase the mind can think about
hypothetical objects and events. This type of thinking is
absolutely essential for the manufacture of a stone tools like a
handaxe. One must form a mental image of what the tool is to
look like before starting to remove flakes from the stone nodule.
Each strike follows from a hypothesis as to its effect on the
shape of the tool. As a consequence, Tom Wynn felt confident in
attributing formal operational intelligence, and hence a
fundamentally modern mind, to the makers of handaxes."

And with the use and control of fire, there is even a greater mental advance. One must think in the abstract, hypothesizing when it will be necessary to get new fuel, what to do to start the fire, etc. Here is data on fire:

"Sites with certain or possible fire evidence are shown on this
chart: dating evidence as well as the small number of sites
limits our interpretation"

1. Olorgesailie 375,00-460,000
2. Gadeb 1,125,000-1,200,000
3. Karari 1,375,000-1,460,000
4. Chesowanja 1,375,000-1,460,000
5. Zhoukoudian 450,000- 550,000
6. Yuanmou 1,210,000-1,300,000
7. l'Escale 450,000- 550,000
8. Terra Amata 300,000- 375,000
9. Vertesszollos 166,000- 250,000

**

"Why then is there hostility to the idea of early fire among some
archaeologists? One view is that fire use represents a
considerable mental advance over stone tool manufacture, and that
it must therefore be expected at a later stage. Holders of this
opinion are unwilling to postulate the use of fire at any time
earlier than is actually proven. But it seems likely that early
humans beings who were skilled in stone tool manufacture and use
would have a similar familiarity with wood (although it is never
preserved.)."

Maybe, maybe not. They did not see a problem with the contradiction between the two creation accounts, they must not have been looking that hard for literal truth, I think. There could be truth in the symbolism, what the account stood for (thinking of Gen. 2).

Maybe they understood it in a different fashion than the simple YEC or poetry concept. I just read Nachmanides on the topic and he treats Genesis 2 as additional information infilling Genesis 1. Josephus says that Genesis 2, Moses is speaking philosophically, but he doesn't say that of Genesis 1. Neither of these pre-scientific men say anything about taking Genesis 1 symbolically. The closest you get is Josephus saying Genesis 2 is more philosophical concerning the creation of man and man's nature.

I think your thinking so concretely has led you to believe the Bible may contains errors, even in the original (not the copying variety). I believe it is nessesary to understand things as they would have before passing judgement and not be too hasty saying the Bible is in error. Am I wrong about your believing the Bible is errant?

I don't understand this. To me, if the Bible teaches a nonsense view of what really happened at creation, something that can in no wise be reconciled, then it is very logical to conclude that it is in error. The YEC view and the view that there is no historical truth in Genesis at all, both seem to me to falsify the Bible. The YECs have interpreted it in such a fashion that there is no way science can ever support their view. The Symbolicists, merely throw the towel in and claim that there isn't any history in it anyway, BUT IT IS STILL TRUE? Which, of course, is a total oxymoron. To simplify the logic, It is like saying: "I believe these utterly historically false stories are absolutely and completely true!!!!" THat is why I can't go the symbolic approach. It is such an oxymoron. I have more than 13 interpretations of Genesis 2 based upon symbolism. WHich is true? Some are utterly mutually exclusive.

To me the correct approach is to admit that our interpretations of scripture (indeed, the interpretation of the ancients) may be wrong. If Scripture can be re-interpreted to avoid conflict with science and to avoid the oxymoronicness of the symbolic approach, then so much the better. That is what I have tried to do.

As I said in another post, we take this for granted when we view the gospels. We understand that during the time it was written, there are allowances that we would not take today. Judging it by todays standard, sure, maybe some inconsistancies. Judging it by their standards, as it should be judged, IMO,--truth.

But this makes you the judge of events for which you were not around. You get the god like power of deciding which things you think are allowances and which you don't. And thus you are the total judge of whether or not God has communcated something to you. You are a post-modernist. Truth, in your view, is subjective not absolute. What if I, or others judge things differently than you? Who is correct? That is what science actually allows--a means to determine truth. If I say the earth is round, we can do experiments to determine if I am right or wrong. But with you judging what they say, there are no experiments to see if your assertions are correct.

I don't think so. Because they were concrete thinkers in hunting does not make them concrete thinkers with theological concepts. Symbolism can be used as can moral stories to teach theological truth. Hey, Jesus did it all the time. He did not always teach historical truth, but He did always teach truth. I think it may be the same with the accounts before Abraham. But I admit that I'm still trying to figure it out.

That is funny, most of the theological concepts we have today came from these particular people. The concept of God the creator as opposed to god the created. The concept of one god. The concept of miracles. The concept of sin, the concept of redemption. What on earth are you talking about here?

When you say he didn't always teach historical truth, are you the world's judge of what truths he taught are historical and which ones aren't? To me, this approach brings tremendous subjectivity into the faith. And if the faith is merely an excercise in subjectivism, where each of us fool ourselves into believing that we personally are right, then there is nothing transcendant about the religion.

reyvin

December 27th 2004, 02:25 PM

Glenn, have you ever considered the framework view? It's theologically rich and perhaps more in tune with what ANE culture had in mind. I agree that we can't toss up our hands and say....'ehhh...figurative' and that be it, but I'm guessing your being far too scientific in your approach.

A Beautiful Truth

December 28th 2004, 12:13 AM

No it isn't. There is absolutely no doubt among anthropologists that our modern minds were in place by 50,000 years ago. You can get argument from some if you go further back...

...And with the use and control of fire, there is even a greater mental advance. One must think in the abstract, hypothesizing when it will be necessary to get new fuel, what to do to start the fire, etc. Here is data on fire:...

You may have misunderstood me. I said it may be hard for YOU to think abstractly. I am not arguing about the mental development of ANE peoples I am arguing about the way the culture would have favored to understand it. Again, I bring up the gospel accounts. What do you say of mis reference of OT passages and the details of the accounts in apparent contradiction? Error? Or do you make allowance because of the way the culture thought and organized information? Because they did not do it as we do today does not make them wrong. You believe it is either your way or no way and apparently do not realize that there are other valid ways of understanding.

Maybe they understood it in a different fashion than the simple YEC or poetry concept. I just read Nachmanides on the topic and he treats Genesis 2 as additional information infilling Genesis 1. Josephus says that Genesis 2, Moses is speaking philosophically, but he doesn't say that of Genesis 1. Neither of these pre-scientific men say anything about taking Genesis 1 symbolically. The closest you get is Josephus saying Genesis 2 is more philosophical concerning the creation of man and man's nature.

Gen. one and Gen. two are different. My focus is on the irreconcilable differences of the accounts. It means one or both are not literal. I say Gen. two is symbolic of theological truth while Gen one gives the God of the Hebrews credit for creation. But I do not believe it is in literal scientific order, I think if it were important as a science document it would have been written so. But the culture had other priorities and the account reflects that. It is still inspired, still truth, still gives God credit for creation. That is the bottom line.

The Symbolicists, merely throw the towel in and claim that there isn't any history in it anyway, BUT IT IS STILL TRUE? Which, of course, is a total oxymoron. To simplify the logic, It is like saying: "I believe these utterly historically false stories are absolutely and completely true!!!!" THat is why I can't go the symbolic approach. It is such an oxymoron. I have more than 13 interpretations of Genesis 2 based upon symbolism. WHich is true? Some are utterly mutually exclusive.

If so, then the parables of Christ are oxymoronic as well, Glenn. Perhaps Genesis before Abraham are like inspired parables given to teach theological truth. Parables are true, and I don't even need to believe that "all truth is relative" in order to make that statement.

But this makes you the judge of events for which you were not around. You get the god like power of deciding which things you think are allowances and which you don't.

All this because I said we need to understand the culture in order to understand why the gospel writers wrote as they did. Critics have come down on them citing errors in O.T. quotes and of the details. How do you handle that? An honest approach says, "let's look at how the culture was at the time to see if it is in error according to their procedures of the time." As it turns out, quoting as they did from the O.T was proper procedure for them and should not be counted as error against the Bible. Is this not a preferable approach to "since it does not fit in our definition of "correct" then it is obviously in "error". As I said, you are very concrete in your thinking. Stubborn, too, but that is besides the point. :kiss:

And thus you are the total judge of whether or not God has communcated something to you. You are a post-modernist. Truth, in your view, is subjective not absolute. What if I, or others judge things differently than you? Who is correct?

Let's see. If I were Glenn and just had someone dicate to me what I was without better knowledge I'd blow them out of the water.

I am no moral relativist, friend. Get your facts straight before throwing this great insult at me. This misunderstanding is one of the side effects of striving so hard to put things into black and white for your own ease of understanding. Human relationships can get hard like that. Don't get me wrong, there are benefits to your personality type--when you are able to strike a balance and can believe that someone else may be right in a way that you have not grasped yet. Humility is always safer, isin't that right?

That is what science actually allows--a means to determine truth. If I say the earth is round, we can do experiments to determine if I am right or wrong. But with you judging what they say, there are no experiments to see if your assertions are correct.

You have no idea what I am talking about. Abstract thinking is not something you h ave a lot of time for, is it? You need things black and white, apparently. Now, I agree many, many things are indeed black and white, but many things are not. People who get too hung up on concrete thinking...some of them end up going crazy, literally. With your type "A" personality to boot, I say you ought to slow down a bit or you are going to end up with a heart attack. I'm serious, and I do care about you.

When you say he didn't always teach historical truth, are you the world's judge of what truths he taught are historical and which ones aren't?

You were patient with me when I had questions about evolution and I am mindful of that. I want to also be as you were towards me.

Perhaps you just misunderstood what I meant because I do not know of anyone who believes that Christ's parables were all literal. Do you, Glenn?

To me, this approach brings tremendous subjectivity into the faith. And if the faith is merely an excercise in subjectivism, where each of us fool ourselves into believing that we personally are right, then there is nothing transcendant about the religion.

Because I believe that Christ's parables were not literal I get this? Unfair, unfair.

Next I'll be told once more as I have already been by a YEC, that I have to believe that there are fire breathing dragons "because the Bible says".

You still have many traits of a YEC. Or, maybe it is that hard core concrete thinkers are just attracted to YEC because they can have black and white. In either case, I take the brunt because you refuse to see that these things may not be black and white.

You have a lot riding on it being black and white. A whole website and everything. You have a vested interest in keeping things as they are. Life is easier that way, isin't it?

I have not meant to return evil for evil. Your relativist comment was really wrong.

Constantine

December 28th 2004, 02:54 AM

On the interpretation I must side with Charleene. I personally believe the Literary Framework view to be correct. I tried the day-age theory and it just doesn't fit what we know of natural history without ALOT of special pleading. And I considered the Days of Proclamation view but there are two reasons I can't accept it.

1. The Early Church Fathers make no mention of it (to my knowledge).

2. I like Charleene do not believe the author of Genesis 1 meant it to be taken as literal or historical but rather symbolic.

There are alot of clues in the text that scream symbolism, I'd like to go over them but first let me respond to a few things said in this thread.

Maybe they understood it in a different fashion than the simple YEC or poetry concept. I just read Nachmanides on the topic and he treats Genesis 2 as additional information infilling Genesis 1. Josephus says that Genesis 2, Moses is speaking philosophically, but he doesn't say that of Genesis 1. Neither of these pre-scientific men say anything about taking Genesis 1 symbolically. The closest you get is Josephus saying Genesis 2 is more philosophical concerning the creation of man and man's nature.

There are some Early Church Fathers who took the symbolic route. For instance the Origen quote in my sig and a few others like these:

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!
(City of God 11:6 [AD 419])

Online source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm

Augustine beleived in a symbolic Genesis. One where the "days" were "perhaps impossible" to concieve. He was a man of the pre-science age. He believed it to by symbolic not because he needed it to, but because that is how he believed the text should be read.

from Clement of Alexandria we read:

“That ten is a sacred number, it is superfluous to say now. And if the tables that were written were the work of God, they will be found to exhibit physical creation. For by the "finger of God" is understood the power of God, by which the creation of heaven and earth is accomplished; of both of which the tables will be understood to be symbols. For the writing and handiwork of God put on the table is the creation of the world.

And the Decalogue, viewed as an image of heaven, embraces sun and moon, stars, clouds, light, wind, water, air, darkness, fire. This is the physical Decalogue of the heaven. And the representation of the earth contains men, cattle, reptiles, wild beasts; and of the inhabitants of the water, fishes and whales; and again, of the winged tribes, those that are carnivorous, and those that rise mild food; and of plants likewise, both fruit-bearing and barren.”

This is the physical Decalogue of the earth.
(Miscellanies 6.16)

Online Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm

From these two quotes we can gather that atleast two prominent Early Church Fathers believed in a symbolic or atleast non-historical/literal reading of the text.

My point is that the ECFs, atleast some of them, did interpret Genesis symbolically. A symbolic interpretation is neither an oxymoron nor some kind of cop-out. It wasn't to Augustine and it isn't to me. Some parts of the Bible are to be taken as symbolism and poetry, and others as historical. Genesis 1 is a symbolic account of real history. The Truth of Genesis 1 is that an all powerful God created the universe and took great care in making it suitable for mankind. That is true and perfectly understandable from a symbolic reading, if not more so. When we stop trying to force science into the text we can better understand the more important theological meaning.

The Bible was written so that we might attain Salvation through Christ. How God created the universe wasn't important to Clement and Agustine and it really isn't the most important thing now. What is important is Who created the universe and Why. These real facts are told to us through a symbolic account of creation put in the literary framework of the creation week.

I am not interpreting the Bible to fit my science nor my science to fit the Bible. I have no difficulty with verses that seem to contradict science like Psalm 93:1

"The LORD is king, robed with majesty; the LORD is robed, girded with might. The world will surely stand in place, never to be moved"

I know that the author's intent here is not to teach us about models of the physical universe but rahter to teach us how permanent and powerful God is. The author uses the example of an immovable earth. Whether the earth moves or not doesn't matter because the spiritual or Theological truth of God's power and majesty is the real message, not geology. Same thing with Psalm 104:1-5

"Bless the LORD, my soul! LORD, my God, you are great indeed! You are clothed with majesty and glory, robed in light as with a cloak. You spread out the heavens like a tent; you raised your palace upon the waters. You make the clouds your chariot; you travel on the wings of the wind. You make the winds your messengers; flaming fire, your ministers. You fixed the earth on its foundation, never to be moved"

I understand that in context the same message as the first example is being conveyed. Not science. Then there is the sun standing still in Job. All of which, if read as real historical fact or literally, cause the apologist quite a bit of trouble. But I don't think they were ever meant to be read like that and so there is no problem in the first place and apologetics can remain concentrated on what is important, Jesus' death and Resurrection.

How you view the symbolic vs historical debate is affected by what your views are on inerrancy and proving Inspiration. I think if we all chimed in on the "Proving Inspiration" thread I started in Ecclesiology it could shine some light on this debate.

reyvin

December 28th 2004, 09:14 AM

On the interpretation I must side with Charleene. I personally believe the Literary Framework view to be correct. I tried the day-age theory and it just doesn't fit what we know of natural history without ALOT of special pleading. And I considered the Days of Proclamation view but there are two reasons I can't accept it.

1. The Early Church Fathers make no mention of it (to my knowledge).

2. I like Charleene do not believe the author of Genesis 1 meant it to be taken as literal or historical but rather symbolic.

There are alot of clues in the text that scream symbolism, I'd like to go over them but first let me respond to a few things said in this thread.

There are some Early Church Fathers who took the symbolic route. For instance the Origen quote in my sig and a few others like these:

Online source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm

Augustine beleived in a symbolic Genesis. One where the "days" were "perhaps impossible" to concieve. He was a man of the pre-science age. He believed it to by symbolic not because he needed it to, but because that is how he believed the text should be read.

from Clement of Alexandria we read:

Online Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm

From these two quotes we can gather that atleast two prominent Early Church Fathers believed in a symbolic or atleast non-historical/literal reading of the text.

My point is that the ECFs, atleast some of them, did interpret Genesis symbolically. A symbolic interpretation is neither an oxymoron nor some kind of cop-out. It wasn't to Augustine and it isn't to me. Some parts of the Bible are to be taken as symbolism and poetry, and others as historical. Genesis 1 is a symbolic account of real history. The Truth of Genesis 1 is that an all powerful God created the universe and took great care in making it suitable for mankind. That is true and perfectly understandable from a symbolic reading, if not more so. When we stop trying to force science into the text we can better understand the more important theological meaning.

The Bible was written so that we might attain Salvation through Christ. How God created the universe wasn't important to Clement and Agustine and it really isn't the most important thing now. What is important is Who created the universe and Why. These real facts are told to us through a symbolic account of creation put in the literary framework of the creation week.

I am not interpreting the Bible to fit my science nor my science to fit the Bible. I have no difficulty with verses that seem to contradict science like Psalm 93:1

"The LORD is king, robed with majesty; the LORD is robed, girded with might. The world will surely stand in place, never to be moved"

I know that the author's intent here is not to teach us about models of the physical universe but rahter to teach us how permanent and powerful God is. The author uses the example of an immovable earth. Whether the earth moves or not doesn't matter because the spiritual or Theological truth of God's power and majesty is the real message, not geology. Same thing with Psalm 104:1-5

"Bless the LORD, my soul! LORD, my God, you are great indeed! You are clothed with majesty and glory, robed in light as with a cloak. You spread out the heavens like a tent; you raised your palace upon the waters. You make the clouds your chariot; you travel on the wings of the wind. You make the winds your messengers; flaming fire, your ministers. You fixed the earth on its foundation, never to be moved"

I understand that in context the same message as the first example is being conveyed. Not science. Then there is the sun standing still in Job. All of which, if read as real historical fact or literally, cause the apologist quite a bit of trouble. But I don't think they were ever meant to be read like that and so there is no problem in the first place and apologetics can remain concentrated on what is important, Jesus' death and Resurrection.

How you view the symbolic vs historical debate is affected by what your views are on inerrancy and proving Inspiration. I think if we all chimed in on the "Proving Inspiration" thread I started in Ecclesiology it could shine some light on this debate.

Absolutely in agreement. Quoting Hagopian in the Genesis Debate (p.15): 'Philosopher George Edward Moore wrote that "the difficulties and disagreements, of which history is full, are mainly due to a very simple cause: namely to the attempt to answer questions, without first discovering precisely what question it is which you desire to answer."...'can it be that we have spent far too much time answering questions about creation without first discovering precisely what question we desire to answer?'

Mercury

December 28th 2004, 05:30 PM

My main reason for not taking the order in Genesis 1 as historical is that it doesn't line up with the order in Genesis 2:4ff and the author/compiler of Genesis seems to have had no problem with that. Another reason comes from outside Genesis. The creation week, and particularly the seventh day, is treated as more than a collection of 24-hour days elsewhere in the Bible. Hebrews 3:7-4:13 discusses God's rest after creation. Here's a portion of it:

1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.' " And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work." 5 And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."

6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.
In verses 4-5, the author goes directly from quoting Genesis 2:2 to quoting Psalm 95:11 which talks about God's rest. The implication is that God's rest after creation is the same rest we can enter (if we don't fall short of it).

Also, note the last part of verse 3 which I bolded above: God's work has been finished since the creation of the world. In other words, even if one believes the world is only 6,000 years old, that means God's rest has been going on for 6,000 years now! When Exodus 20:11 explains the Sabbath command by saying "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day", we know from this passage in Hebrews 4 that "he rested on the seventh day" refers to a rest of at least 6,000 years (and in my view, a much longer time). The symbol of God's rest is a day (the Sabbath) but the reality is much more. In another sense the reality is also less, since God does not rest by ceasing all activity. Both the idea of God physically resting and the duration of his rest are symbolic ways to get across a deeper truth.

Perhaps my way of reading Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 would be made more clear by explaining how I read another verse (although this will probably be more controversial):

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
In both verses, an ordinance is being instituted (the Sabbath and the Lord's Supper). In the first, creation is equated with six days and God's rest with the seventh day. In the second, bread is equated with Jesus' body which was given for us. I do not believe the bread really is Jesus' body. I think it's symbolic. Similarly, I do not believe creation really happened in six literal days; I believe the days are symbolic.

In order for us to have a way of remembering what Jesus did for us, he gave us an observance whereby we can remember his sacrifice every time we partake of a piece of bread and a cup of wine in fellowship with believers. The symbolism is detailed more fully in John 6:25-66, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious.

In order for us to have a way of remembering creation, God gave the Israelites an observance whereby they could remember God's act of creation and God's rest through a week of six days' work and a Sabbath rest. The symbolism is detailed more fully in Genesis 1:1-2:3, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious.

Now, obviously many Christians will disagree with this -- either with taking the bread symbolically or with taking the days symbolically. I certainly don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. But, if you accept this interpretation of either the bread or the days, this comparison may help to show how some people can accept both.

grmorton

December 28th 2004, 11:29 PM

You may have misunderstood me. I said it may be hard for YOU to think abstractly. I am not arguing about the mental development of ANE peoples I am arguing about the way the culture would have favored to understand it. Again, I bring up the gospel accounts. What do you say of mis reference of OT passages and the details of the accounts in apparent contradiction? Error? Or do you make allowance because of the way the culture thought and organized information? Because they did not do it as we do today does not make them wrong. You believe it is either your way or no way and apparently do not realize that there are other valid ways of understanding.

Gee, my feelings are hurt. As a physicist by training, I can't think of anything more abstract than what I studied as a student. :lol: Maybe you have a different definition of abstract than I do.

Concerning the gospel accounts, some of them at least can be harmonized, some can't presently. I would hope that new info might resolve some of them. But, if they are simply irreconcilable, then why would one not then conclude the bible is wrong?

It isn't that I don't understand that there are other ways of understanding, it is that I don't understand how one can in all seriousness claim something is true when it is utterly false. Two plus two equals four, except when it doesn't. THat is the nature of what I find so distasteful about most TE approaches. And it isn't my way or no way. It is either history or forget it. That better fits my view.

Gen. one and Gen. two are different. My focus is on the irreconcilable differences of the accounts. It means one or both are not literal. I say Gen. two is symbolic of theological truth while Gen one gives the God of the Hebrews credit for creation. But I do not believe it is in literal scientific order, I think if it were important as a science document it would have been written so. But the culture had other priorities and the account reflects that. It is still inspired, still truth, still gives God credit for creation. That is the bottom line.

Of what good is the credit if the account giving credit to God is so unreconcilable with reality that it discredits God and becomes the basis for many people becoming atheist? It is like damning God with faint praise.

I don't beleive it is a scientific document either. But then one doesn't need scientific documents to describe a true account. One can see the red car hit the blue car and be perfectly historically true. ONe doesn't need to talk about momentum, molecular forces, friction etc. to get the truth. Similarly, the account could have simply said, "out of the slime came life" and there would be no debate about evolution, but the account doesn't say that. Why not? Why does giving God credit for doing something other than what actually happened do any good for God? Was God not powerful enough to actually communicate a true, but simple story of creation? Is HE impotent?

If so, then the parables of Christ are oxymoronic as well, Glenn. Perhaps Genesis before Abraham are like inspired parables given to teach theological truth. Parables are true, and I don't even need to believe that "all truth is relative" in order to make that statement.

This parable business is a red herring. Each starts with "jesus told a parable" clearly identifying it as such. Where is that statement in the Genesis account? You are adding to the Bible as much as are the YECs in their way. Maybe we all do it, but we should try to avoid it when it is pointed out.

All this because I said we need to understand the culture in order to understand why the gospel writers wrote as they did. Critics have come down on them citing errors in O.T. quotes and of the details. How do you handle that? An honest approach says, "let's look at how the culture was at the time to see if it is in error according to their procedures of the time." As it turns out, quoting as they did from the O.T was proper procedure for them and should not be counted as error against the Bible. Is this not a preferable approach to "since it does not fit in our definition of "correct" then it is obviously in "error". As I said, you are very concrete in your thinking. Stubborn, too, but that is besides the point. :kiss:

Yeah, I am stubborn. I wouldn't have gotten this far if I weren't. I would now be an atheist. Nothing the TEs, Gap theorists, YECs or any other group offered satisfied my needs to maintain historicity. I simply have a problem seeing why God would allow a false story of creation to be communicated and then take credit for it.

Either
God is willing and able to communicate the truth about creation--in which case he lied.

God is willing and unable to communicate the truth about creation--in which case he is impotent

God is unwilling but able to communicate the truth about creation--in which case he is evil

or

God is unwilling and unable to communicate the truth about creation --in which case he is unworthy of worship.

Which is it? What are the other options? This is a variation of the Epicurian argument for atheism transmitted to us through Lactantius.

Let's see. If I were Glenn and just had someone dicate to me what I was without better knowledge I'd blow them out of the water.

no doubt, but ..

I am no moral relativist, friend. Get your facts straight before throwing this great insult at me. This misunderstanding is one of the side effects of striving so hard to put things into black and white for your own ease of understanding. Human relationships can get hard like that. Don't get me wrong, there are benefits to your personality type--when you are able to strike a balance and can believe that someone else may be right in a way that you have not grasped yet. Humility is always safer, isin't that right?

Are you only happy with people when they agree with you and don't tell you what they see wrong with your IDEAS, not with you personally? Are you so sensitive that one can't criticise your ideas without hurting your feelings? My views are criticized all the time, and one must get a thicker skin.

I believe that the approach many TEs take is one which leads to a relativistic view. You don't have to agree, but you shouldn't get mad simply because I state my viewpoint. If you don't want to engage in a real debate but prefer instead to have yes men all around, then leave me out of your discussions. It seems that it is ok for me to whack YEC but not ok to whack TE.

Lets go back to the IDEAS. Which choice of the four do you chose above, or explain clearly and logically why you think this doesn't apply. HOw do you logically get out of it. If God doesn't tell us the truth, how do we know he is telling us the truth about salvation?

You are quite free to whack at my ideas as well, and I won't get my feelings hurt. I might whack back but my feelings are checked at the door in these debates. If they weren't I would be very hurt indeed.

You have no idea what I am talking about. Abstract thinking is not something you have a lot of time for, is it? You need things black and white, apparently. Now, I agree many, many things are indeed black and white, but many things are not. People who get too hung up on concrete thinking...some of them end up going crazy, literally. With your type "A" personality to boot, I say you ought to slow down a bit or you are going to end up with a heart attack. I'm serious, and I do care about you.

If you mean by 'abstract thinking' doing what the Queen in Alice does, then no I don't have much time for it. I like things logically tied up with as few a set of internal contradictions as one can have. (no we never get away from them all). But we can't be like the queen in Alice and Wonderland. (you aren't going to like this, but remember, I am attacking your ideas, not you. If you can't take it that way, stop reading here)

"There's no use trying," she said: " One can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen, "When I was your
age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I've believed as
many as six impossible things before breakfast."

two plus two equals four, except when it doesn't for theological reasons.

You were patient with me when I had questions about evolution and I am mindful of that. I want to also be as you were towards me.

Perhaps you just misunderstood what I meant because I do not know of anyone who believes that Christ's parables were all literal. Do you, Glenn?

As I said, they are labeled. That makes a BIG difference. Are the miracles in the OT, which are not labeled as parables, merely parables as well?

As to patience, why do you think your views are above criticism? Mine aren't. You once wrote me a note chiding me for some stuff I said. You were right. I didn't get all tooty with you and act like you had no right to tell me what you thought. So please don't do that when I criticise your ideas.

Because I believe that Christ's parables were not literal I get this? Unfair, unfair.

It is unfair of you to expect me to agree with you and then act as if it is unfair for me to tell you WHY I can't go the direction you go. If it works for you, fine. I find the approach subjective. It isn't anything personal. But don't expect me to change what I think ABOUT YOUR VIEWS (not you) just because you want me to say nice things about your views. I think the nonhistorical/allegorical approach to Scripture cuts it off at its knees--logically speaking. It is like in Vietnam when that reporter said in order to save the village we had to destroy it. If we say there is no historicity in the Genesis accounts, then from the four options above, I think we have simply destroyed God as creator.

You are free to disagree, but don't get your feelings hurt. I am not required to agree with you and I am not required to avoid all criticism of your views.

Mercury

December 29th 2004, 03:19 AM

Concerning the gospel accounts, some of them at least can be harmonized, some can't presently. I would hope that new info might resolve some of them. But, if they are simply irreconcilable, then why would one not then conclude the bible is wrong?The real question is what involvement human authors had in writing Scripture. Could grammar errors have been present in the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic they wrote? What about quotations that aren't word-for-word? Could they speak from their own perspective but still be used by God to give us what God wants us to have? I think all these things are possible without denying inspiration. But, I readily admit that this approach means that answers to biblical questions will not always be clear-cut.
It isn't that I don't understand that there are other ways of understanding, it is that I don't understand how one can in all seriousness claim something is true when it is utterly false. Two plus two equals four, except when it doesn't. THat is the nature of what I find so distasteful about most TE approaches.Yes, that is a common argument against various biblical interpretations. Rather than treating Scripture like literature, many people would prefer to treat it like mathematical equations. Jesus = God. Jesus = the Word. The Word = the Bible. Therefore, the Bible = God. While this 2+2 approach to Scripture may be easier, I do not believe it is correct.
Similarly, the account could have simply said, "out of the slime came life" and there would be no debate about evolution, but the account doesn't say that. Why not?Maybe the truth the account is trying to convey isn't about slime. What if the purpose is actually to tell us about God and his relationship to creation and specifically humans? I don't believe God dictated the Bible -- not even for Genesis 1. I think God inspired human beings to write Scripture. They wrote from their own perspective, they used language and vocabulary that was familiar to them, they used imagery that made sense to them. The end result is not a dictation of divine speech but rather exactly what God wants us to have.

God could stop making his appeal to others through Holy Spirit-indwelled yet flawed people and instead convince every person of his existence through undeniable miracles. God chooses not to work that way. God chooses to give humans an active role in his plan for creation. That includes using humans to spread the Good News and inspiring humans to write Scripture. The Bible points to God; it does not encapsulate God.
This parable business is a red herring. Each starts with "jesus told a parable" clearly identifying it as such.For many parables this is true, but not nearly all of them. Many say "The kingdom of heaven is like" or use similar words to make clear that the story is an analogy (for instance Matthew 25:1-13). Other stories, such as the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the great banquet (Luke 14:15-24), the shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-15) and the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) have no clear indications as to whether they are historically true or not, but the consensus seems to be that they are parables. Some are hotly debated, especially the rich man and Lazarus. There's even some parables that are presented differently in different gospels: the parable of the talents is clearly identified as a parable in Luke (19:11-27) but not in Matthew (25:14-30). There is no fixed pattern that applies in all cases. Nor should there be -- Scripture is literature, not math.

If you have a magic bullet for identifying parables, I'm sure many people would love to hear it! However, if you think it's as simple as looking for the word "parable", then either you believe there are far fewer parables of Jesus than is generally accepted, or you haven't looked too closely at how parables are presented in the gospels. Could you clarify whether you think any of the stories Jesus used that don't use the word "parable" are actually parables?
Either
God is willing and able to communicate the truth about creation--in which case he lied.

God is willing and unable to communicate the truth about creation--in which case he is impotent

God is unwilling but able to communicate the truth about creation--in which case he is evil

or

God is unwilling and unable to communicate the truth about creation --in which case he is unworthy of worship.

Which is it? What are the other options?I was planning on seeing a movie last night and I asked a friend who'd already seen it what it was like. She told me a few basics about the movie and gave her impression, but when I actually saw it, I found out that she'd left a bunch out -- especially in glossing over a few twists that came as a complete shock to me! Now, was my friend willing and able to communicate the truth about the movie to me, or willing and unable, unwilling but able, or unwilling and unable?

The answer, of course, is that my friend was unwilling but able -- but that doesn't make her evil. She had my best interests in mind, and she wanted me to enjoy the movie. She explained enough for me to make a good decision about whether to see it, but not enough to spoil it. She knew she didn't need to tell me all the details because I had the ability to learn them myself by watching the movie, and that would be far more enjoyable than hearing them second-hand. (Not that it really matters, but since you care about such things, I'll mention that this example was actually a parable of sorts and not an actual historical event. :wink: )

I think God has provided enough for us to know him and how he desires a restored relationship with us, but not a cheat-sheet for all of life's mysteries. God also gave us a brain and I believe that implicit in the command to rule over creation is his desire for us to use those brains to learn more about our surroundings. God has made a universe that we can explore. What we find may occasionally surprise us -- God hasn't ruined it all by spilling the beans. We've been told what we need to know but not all we'd like to know. I don't think that makes God evil, and instead I think it makes our existence far more interesting.

Ark Guy

December 29th 2004, 11:47 AM

Considering that the creation was only six days...one day with out sunlight would have been no problem....besides there was oother light present prior to the creation of the sun.

Tickle Me Goody

December 29th 2004, 11:48 AM

Considering that the creation was only six days...one day with out sunlight would have been no problem....besides there was oother light present prior to the creation of the sun.
Good point for literalist folks.

I guess.

reyvin

December 29th 2004, 11:54 AM

Good point for literalist folks.

I guess.

Not really. See JohnRansom's second reply to Socrates during their debate:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1892&highlight=johnransom+socrates

grmorton

December 29th 2004, 12:10 PM

The real question is what involvement human authors had in writing Scripture. Could grammar errors have been present in the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic they wrote? What about quotations that aren't word-for-word? Could they speak from their own perspective but still be used by God to give us what God wants us to have? I think all these things are possible without denying inspiration. But, I readily admit that this approach means that answers to biblical questions will not always be clear-cut.

Don't get me wrong, I don't wish for the Bible to be wrong, but too often we Christians, when faced with these issues see to do anything silly in order not to come to that conclusion. Some atheists on this board would accuse me of the same. The one thing we can't do with apologetics is get into a heads-I-win; tails-you-lose situation, which seems to me what we do. The YECs find a problem, so they deny science. The Old earthers find a problem, they declare victory by declaring that the Bible really didn't mean to say anything meaningful about reality (other than about values and some vague ideology). I like Huxley's statement:

"If we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority, we
must believe that what seems so clearly defined in Genesis--as
if very great pains had been taken that there should be no
possibility of mistake--is not the meaning of the text at all.
The account is divided into periods that we may make just as
long or as short as convenience requires. We are also to
understand that it is consistent with the original text to
believe that the most complex plants and animals may have been
evolved by natural processes, lasting for millions of years, out
of structureless rudiments. A person who is not a Hebrew
scholar can only stand aside and admire the marvellous
flexibility of a language which admits of such diverse
interpretations."

Yes, that is a common argument against various biblical interpretations. Rather than treating Scripture like literature, many people would prefer to treat it like mathematical equations. Jesus = God. Jesus = the Word. The Word = the Bible. Therefore, the Bible = God. While this 2+2 approach to Scripture may be easier, I do not believe it is correct.

It isn't mathematics. It is logic. If a view leads to internal logical contradictions, I can assure you it is a false view. Truth doesn't contradict truth. And that is what is so flawed, in the allegorical approach to scripture and it is the same thing ridiculed by Huxley above. If a passage can mean anything whatsoever, it isn't communicating anything. And once one allegoricalizes the passage, one is free to ascribe to it any meaning whatsoever. INdeed, there are many different views of the meaning of the early chapters of Genesis. Take Genesis 2, for which I have a better list, I have 11 different allegorical treatments of Gen. 2. Which is true?

These are from John C.
Munday, Jr., "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology,"
Westminster Theological Journal, 58(1996), pp. 123-154,p.
128-130

I named them, Munday didn't

1 “Tolkein” interp: Cassuto: “'The Garden of Eden according to the Torah was not situated in our world.'” This is the

1a Skinner: “'it is obvious that a real locality
answering the description of Eden exists and has existed
nowhere on the face of the earth...(T)he whole
representation (is) outside the sphere of real geographic
knowledge. In (Genesis 2) 10-14, in short, we have...a
semi-mythical geography.'”

1b Ryle, “'The account...is irreconcilable with scientific geography.'”

1c Radday: “Eden is nowhere because of its deliberately tongue-in-cheek fantastic geography. McKenzie asserted that 'the
geography of Eden is altogether unreal; it is a Never-never
land.'”

1d Amit: the garden story to be literary utopianism,
that the Garden was 'never-known,' with no real location.

1e Burns': “the rivers were the entryway into the numinous “world.

1f Wallace: who held that the inclusion of the
Tigris and Euphrates indicated an 'earthly geographic
situation,' but saw the Eden narrative as constructed from a
garden dwelling-of-God motif (with rivers nourishing the
earth) combined with a creation motif, both drawing richly
from those motifs as found in Ancient Near East mythological
literature.”

"If actualism in Eden's geography is considered
doubtful, then the story may be interpreted as a

2. Preaching: homiletic exposition built on primeval residue,
3. sociologic: a late sociological commentary.
4. utopian: It represents paradisal beatitude,' what an idyllic life is offered by obedience to the Torah and god
5. archaeologic: It represents the transition from hunter-gatherering to farming.
6. Mormonic: Man can become Gardner-Kingman is not a slave of the gods but has been made a king himself.
7. Marxist: It’s a political allegory dealing with the battles between the Judahite royalty and the peasant class, Marxist
8. Hefnerian: its a sexual allegory,
9. fundamentalist: a polemic against Caananite religion,
10. Gibbonian, power is fleeting: a parable of the deposition and deportation of a king to Mesopotamia (hence the inclusion of 2:10-14)

11. “Differences from the Sumerian paradise myth and the
Gilgamesh epic led Bledstein to perceive the Eden story as
intended to reduce men 'from heroic, godlike beings to
earthlings.' and to separate females from the extremes of
goddess or 'slavish menials of men.' “

So which allegory is the RIGHT and TRUE allegory? That illustrates the problem with that approach. How is one to determine what in the heck God was trying to communicate?

Maybe the truth the account is trying to convey isn't about slime. What if the purpose is actually to tell us about God and his relationship to creation and specifically humans?

Fine,I would accept that IF one had a shred of evidence that that was God's intent. As noted above, I can think of a gazillion different intents to ascribe to God. Here are some. Maybe God's message is I am so powerful to have created the universe, therefore don't mess with me. Maybe God's message is There is only one god and polytheism is wrong(a common view). Maybe God's message is observational science is wrong all is an illusion. Maybe God's message is to tell how special grass is to him and thus not to walk on it (Let the earth bring forth grass...)

I don't believe God dictated the Bible -- not even for Genesis 1. I think God inspired human beings to write Scripture.

I don't either, but whatever form inspiration took, if it was incapable of actually communicating what God wanted, then Shannon's noisy channel theorem comes into play.

This is from a post I made to the ASA list:

As to a mixture, I am re-reading Shannon's paper which started information
theory (just having had a debate on the issue.) He has a part of the paper
which is directly applicable to this issue of what is and is not to be taken
allegorically and what is and what isn't to be taken as history.

God is supposedly trying to communicate with mankind. That makes God the source
function in information theory. He uses the channel of a written book or a
story about the creation of the universe. Now, here is what Shannon says:

"If a noisy channel is fed by a source there are two statistical processes
at work: the source and the noise. Thus there are a number of entropies that
can be calculated. First there is the entropy H(x) of the source or of the input
to the channel (these will be equal if the transmitter is non-singular). The
entropy of the output of the channel, i.e., the received signal, will be denoted
by H(y). In the noiseless case H(y) = H(x). The joint entorpy of input and
output will by H(xy). Finally there are two conditional entropies Hx(y) and
Hy(x), the entropy of the output when the input is known and conversely. Among
these quantities we have the relations

H(x,y) = H(x) + Hx(y)= H(y) + Hy(x).

All of these entropies can be measured on a per-second or per-symbol basis.
"If the channel is noisy it is not in general possible to reconstruct the
original message or the transmitted signal with certainty by any operation on
the received signal E." C. E. Shannon, "" A Mathematical theory of
Communication"" The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(1948):3:379-423, p. 19, 20
at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf

He then talks about a 1000 bit per second transmission channel. Which has a
1/100 error rate--e.g. a 0 is received as a 1 or a 1 is received as a zero.

"Evidently the proper correction to apply to the amount of information
transmitted is the amount of this information which is missing in the received
signal, or alternatively the uncertainty when we have received a signal of what
was actually sent. From our previous discussion o fentropy as a measure of
uncertainty it seems reasonable to use the conditional entropy of the message,
knowing the received signal, as a measure of this missing information. This is
indeed the proper definition, as we shall see later. Following this idea the
rate of actual transmission, R, would be obtained by subtracting from the rae of
production (i.e., the entropy of the source) the average rate of conditional
entropy.

R = H(x)- Hy(x)

"The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the
equivocation. It measures the averatge ambiguity of the received signal.
"In the example considered above, if a 0 is received the a posteriori
probability taht a 0 was transmitted is .99, and that a 1 was transmitted is
0.1. These figures are reversed if a 1 is received. Hence

Hy(x)= -[.99log.99+0.01log0.01]
=.081 bits/symbol
or 81 bits per second. We may say that the system is transmitting at a rate of
1000-81=919 bits per second. In the extreme case where a 0 is equally likely to
be received as a 0 or 1 and similarly for 1, the aposteriori probabiltieis are
1/2,1/2 and

Hy(x) = -[1/2log1/2 +1/2log1/2]
= 1 bit per symbol

or 1000 bits per second. The rate of transmission is then 0 as it should be."
C. E. Shannon, "" A Mathematical theory of Communication"" The Bell System
Technical Journal, 27(1948):3:379-423, p. 20 at http://cm.bell-
labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf

Now if we have a situation in the God-communicates-to-humans-system a case where
we have every single part that we can't tell whether it is meant to be taken as
historically true or historically false, then we are in the situation at the
last case. The probability for each part is 1/2 true and 1/2 false. Then Hy(x)
equals 1 bit per symbol or the rate of transmission of the divinely inspired
message is zero.

That is what is wrong with the allegorical and mixture approach. Communication
becomes impossible and I will cite the noisy channel theorem of Shannon! (How is
that for applying science to theology?) It is clear that christians of various
stripes see various things as true and various things as 'allegorical'.
Bultmann, [sic?] I think felt that even Jesus as the Christ was allegorical.
Jesus was a man and the Spirit of God abandoned the poor fellow on the cross.
Because of this, if the story is simply given a 50-50 chance of being right,
there is no communication at all by God. All is random.

In geophysics we would call this the case where the signal to noise ratio is 1.
I try to record a seismic signal from reflections off of rock layers. But if
the wind is blowing strong enough in some places, the tree roots act as a
seismic signal. When that signal is as great as my seismic source, the signal
to noise ratio is 1. Half the samples we record in that situation are correct.
Half are false. We don't know which is which. We can't unscramble truth from fiction.

Making the Bible have a signal to noise ratio of 1 we won't be able to separate truth from fiction.

They wrote from their own perspective, they used language and vocabulary that was familiar to them, they used imagery that made sense to them. The end result is not a dictation of divine speech but rather exactly what God wants us to have.

And if that is true, that they used concepts familiar to them and not to us, then we have no idea what they were trying to communicate and that means that communication drops to zip! You can't claim to know what they meant anymore than I because you have just ruled out modern people really understanding what they were saying.

There's even some parables that are presented differently in different gospels: the parable of the talents is clearly identified as a parable in Luke (19:11-27) but not in Matthew (25:14-30). There is no fixed pattern that applies in all cases. Nor should there be -- Scripture is literature, not math.

But it isn't supposed to be irrational either. I don't think it is math. But logic most certainly applies, and unless you are an advocate of interpreting the Bible illogically, we must apply logic to it. INdeed, that is what the logy in theology is--logic! The problem I have is that modern theology has removed the logic and accepts almost any interpretation no matter how much it varies with scripture. Indeed, I agree with much of this following passage:

"It is salutary to recall this, since one all-to-common
feature of modern theology has been a Gnostic retreat from the
world—the natural world especially, but very often the historical
and social world as well. Certain forms of pietism retreat from
the world, leaving politics, economics, history, and science to
their own devices. In some early twentieth-century theologies, we
again see an essentially Gnostic withdrawal from any
interpretation of the natural (or even historical) world; I think
for example of Tillich or Bultmann. Indeed, there is a marked
tendency to suppose that science and religion are distinct and
mutually impermeable spheres of interpretation and understanding.
This is conditioned by an understandable if regrettable reaction
to modern fundamentalism, which seemed to offer a revealed
pseudoscience as an antidote to emergent modern science. Often
this was seen, at least among the university educated, as a
losing proposition. Fundamentalism made faith implausible to
those who were convinced by paradigms of knowledge,
understanding, and interpretation developed under the aegis of
modern science.

As long as we continue to retreat from having religion and nature interact, we will be delivering the sphere of reality to the atheistic world view and keeping for ourselves the sphere of nonverifiable experience--mere existentialism. If we let it be that science talks about reality and religion talks about something else, we will lose every time. We are losing, if you haven't noticed.

If you have a magic bullet for identifying parables, I'm sure many people would love to hear it!

The same can be said of the allegorical position. They seem to think they do have a Parable DetectorTM and it detects a parable, coincidentally, everytime there is some sort of tension between our understanding of scritpure and our understanding of nature. It is amazing how often the Parable DetectorTM is used to cause religion to retreat more and more from physical reality. They YECs retreat into pseudoscience and the allegoricalists retreat into physically vacuous stories about relationships.

A Beautiful Truth

December 29th 2004, 02:00 PM

Gee, my feelings are hurt. As a physicist by training, I can't think of anything more abstract than what I studied as a student. :lol: Maybe you have a different definition of abstract than I do.

Yes, the opposite of a hard core literalist, as yourself when it comes to the Bible.

Concerning the gospel accounts, some of them at least can be harmonized, some can't presently. I would hope that new info might resolve some of them. But, if they are simply irreconcilable, then why would one not then conclude the bible is wrong?

It isn't that I don't understand that there are other ways of understanding, it is that I don't understand how one can in all seriousness claim something is true when it is utterly false.

So parts of the gospel utterly false? Perhaps most of it? How do you know? Why be a Christian if the writings about him are error-filled? Unicornitarianism?

Double standard.

It is either history or forget it. That better fits my view.

So since you can't reconcile the error in the gospels, and therefore the history is incorrect, forget Christianity, then.

Of what good is the credit if the account giving credit to God is so unreconcilable with reality that it discredits God and becomes the basis for many people becoming atheist? It is like damning God with faint praise.

And the gospels don't do this either? If it is not history it is discredited, right? You have the gospels discredited by your definition.

I don't beleive it is a scientific document either. But then one doesn't need scientific documents to describe a true account.

Is the parable of the sower a true account?

Why does giving God credit for doing something other than what actually happened do any good for God?

He DID create the sky, He DID create the the land, He DID create the plants, He DID create the sun, moon, and stars, He DID create sea life and birds, He DID create land animals and humans. God gets credit for it, what more do you need? You said yourself you don't need it to be a scientific document, so what more do you need?

Was God not powerful enough to actually communicate a true, but simple story of creation? Is HE impotent?

Was God not powerful enough to actually ensure a true communication of His Son's life here on earth?

But God is powerful enough to actually communicate a true story of creation, and He did. He also ensured a true communication of His Son's life on earth.

You would have me believe one and not the other.

This parable business is a red herring. Each starts with "jesus told a parable" clearly identifying it as such.

So parables are "true" even though they are not historical?

And what of being born again? True though not scientificall accurate? What of eating and drinking of Christ? literal? Jesus knew people would be confused about the literalness about it and yet He said it anyway. What of destroying the temple and raising it up in three days? Literally true or was Jesus speaking abstractly?

Where is that statement in the Genesis account?

Probably in the same place where the statment is in the book of Revelation and in reference to be born again and to the temple, and to partaking of His body and blood.

I simply have a problem seeing why God would allow a false story of creation to be communicated and then take credit for it.

Now you have me wondering why He would do it with the gospels.

Either
God is willing and able to communicate the truth in the gospels--in which case he lied.

God is willing and unable to communicate the truth in the gospels--in which case he is impotent

God is unwilling but able to communicate the truth in the gospels--in which case he is evil

or

God is unwilling and unable to communicate the truth in the gospels --in which case he is unworthy of worship.

Which is it? What are the other options? This is a variation of the Epicurian argument for atheism transmitted to us through Lactantius.

You tell me.

Are you only happy with people when they agree with you and don't tell you what they see wrong with your IDEAS, not with you personally?

No, I am very, very, happy with you that you showed me what you did about human evolution. I did not take it personally. I'd rather be miserable with the truth than happy with falsehood.

Are you so sensitive that one can't criticise your ideas without hurting your feelings? My views are criticized all the time, and one must get a thicker skin.

You insulted me without better knowledge. I believe in absolutes, even though I believe that Gen. may not be literal, even though I do not believe the gospels are to be judged without knowledge and allowance of the ANE culture, even though I do not believe the Book of Revelation to be literal.

What you accused me of does not follow these beliefs.

I believe that the approach many TEs take is one which leads to a relativistic view. You don't have to agree, but you shouldn't get mad simply because I state my viewpoint.

That was not the view point you stated. You made it personal by telling me what I believed. If you had presented your belief as you did above, then fine, no issue taken, it's your belief. But when you made it personal, I can correct you--you told me I believed something that I did not.

If you don't want to engage in a real debate but prefer instead to have yes men all around, then leave me out of your discussions. It seems that it is ok for me to whack YEC but not ok to whack TE.

You have no idea my involvement in the past with the day-age view and with OEC, which you "whack" frequently. Instead of leaving you out of the discussion because I only wanted to have "yes men" around, I sought you out as a critic because you brought up valid points.

So this is another point you got wrong about me. I do not come to Tweb to have "yes men" all around. I come to Tweb to learn. I have not always been open to human evolution, but I was around people who validly disagreed and I listened. So don't give me that "yes men" line.

Lets go back to the IDEAS. Which choice of the four do you chose above, or explain clearly and logically why you think this doesn't apply. HOw do you logically get out of it. If God doesn't tell us the truth, how do we know he is telling us the truth about salvation?

Was going to ask you the same. If the gospels have error, how do we know he is telling us the truth about salvation?

You are quite free to whack at my ideas as well, and I won't get my feelings hurt. I might whack back but my feelings are checked at the door in these debates. If they weren't I would be very hurt indeed.

Maybe your predjudice is because I am a woman and you EXPECT me to be emotional. I saw how you reacted with Dee Dee. I say I acted no different (maybe even less emotional even) to you when you got it wrong about me (the relativist and "yes men" comments).

I like things logically tied up with as few a set of internal contradictions as one can have.

That's why you can't take the gospels as true, right?

two plus two equals four, except when it doesn't for theological reasons.

You still don't understand... If something is not meant to be concrete (the order of Genesis 2 compared to 1; the taking of Christ's body of blood; being born again; destroy this temple; the Book of Revelation) then you can not judge it in error for not being concrete. These, I believe, are not to be taken in a literal, concrete way. But you may have to in order to make them "true".

As I said, they are labeled. That makes a BIG difference. Are the miracles in the OT, which are not labeled as parables, merely parables as well?

Nay, I have said nothing of miracles in the O.T. I speak of early Genesis which is ripe with symbolism and would be in contradiction if taken literally (specifically Gen. 2 would contradict Gen. 1 if taken literally).

As to patience, why do you think your views are above criticism?

I don't, that's why I come here and change my mind as I learn more. This is evidenced in my posts here on Tweb.

Mercury

December 29th 2004, 02:34 PM

Don't get me wrong, I don't wish for the Bible to be wrong, but too often we Christians, when faced with these issues see to do anything silly in order not to come to that conclusion.I guess it depends what you expect the Bible to do for you. Is it supposed to prove God's existence or tell us what we need to know about God and ourselves? For the first, a book written directly by God's finger would definitely be preferable, but for the second what we have is sufficient.
Truth doesn't contradict truth. And that is what is so flawed, in the allegorical approach to scripture and it is the same thing ridiculed by Huxley above. If a passage can mean anything whatsoever, it isn't communicating anything. And once one allegoricalizes the passage, one is free to ascribe to it any meaning whatsoever.That sounds bad, but fortunately it doesn't line up with the actual range of opinions by TEs about Genesis 1. If what you're saying were correct, the views should be scattered randomly all over the map. Instead, we have something closer to a bell curve -- there's bizarre theories on the fringe, but most people tend to agree on most of what Genesis 1 is speaking of. For example, consider the reason for the days being divided as they are. Practically all TEs agree that there's two groups of three days, and that day 1 is linked with 4, day 2 with 5, and day 3 with 6. As to what the two groups of days actually represent, I've heard them described as forming and filling, preparation and population, realms and characters, kingdoms and kings. And yet, there's a lot that all these views have in common. Rather than leading to an anything-goes hermeneutic, the TE interpretations are probably about as consistent as YE interpretations and more so than OE ones such as gap or day-age. And, of course, they have the added benefit of not contradicting reality.
Take Genesis 2, for which I have a better list, I have 11 different allegorical treatments of Gen. 2. Which is true? [...] That illustrates the problem with that approach. How is one to determine what in the heck God was trying to communicate?I don't want to get too far into Genesis 2 here, but I'll say that you have a much stronger case for that creation account being historical than you do with Genesis 1. Most of the clues within the text that Genesis 1 is not literal history are not present in Genesis 2. Genesis 2 doesn't have rigid divisions with a repeated refrain; it doesn't have an order that is illogical literally, such as the creation of daylight before the sun; it isn't referred to in the New Testament in a way that infers its time spans are symbolic; it doesn't use a time frame that serves another purpose, such as the institution of the work week and Sabbath. And, even the biggest reason for me -- the differences between the two Genesis creation accounts -- needn't mean that both accounts are non-historical. For Genesis 2, my reasons for taking the text symbolically have more to do with the magic trees and evidence outside of the Bible. I also find your interpretation of this account quite interesting. I don't think it's the most likely one, but it is one I consider. However, when it comes to Genesis 1 I think you're shutting your eyes to the obvious.
whatever form inspiration took, if it was incapable of actually communicating what God wanted, then Shannon's noisy channel theorem comes into play. [...] Now if we have a situation in the God-communicates-to-humans-system a case where we have every single part that we can't tell whether it is meant to be taken as historically true or historically false, then we are in the situation at the last case. The probability for each part is 1/2 true and 1/2 false. Then Hy(x) equals 1 bit per symbol or the rate of transmission of the divinely inspired message is zero.This assumes that the only truth content of the message is historical truth. So, for instance, if we were to evaluate whether or not the Good Samaritan story was "truth", it would depend only on whether the event happened at least once exactly as described. Since we don't know the answer to that, that means the truth content of the story is zero. If you can see the problem with that approach to this story (by the definition you gave earlier, this story is not a parable), it should be clear how the same applies to Genesis 1.
And if that is true, that they used concepts familiar to them and not to us, then we have no idea what they were trying to communicate and that means that communication drops to zip! You can't claim to know what they meant anymore than I because you have just ruled out modern people really understanding what they were saying.I don't understand your all-or-nothing approach. I haven't at all ruled out modern people understanding what they were saying. Do you really mean that because Jesus' stories used sheep and vineyards instead of cars and computers that our understanding of them is zilch? Give yourself (and the rest of us) more credit!
I don't think it is math. But logic most certainly applies, and unless you are an advocate of interpreting the Bible illogically, we must apply logic to it.Agreed. Logic applies. I don't see logical problems in the TE approach to Genesis 1. However, I do see problems in some of the logical arguments you've presented, such as your four-fold choice from last post and your Shannon information application in this post.

grmorton

December 29th 2004, 02:55 PM

Yes, the opposite of a hard core literalist, as yourself when it comes to the Bible.

Never heard that called abstract. I don't find it particularly abstract, I find that kind of thinking more loosy-goosy.

So parts of the gospel utterly false? Perhaps most of it? How do you know? Why be a Christian if the writings about him are error-filled? Unicornitarianism?

Double standard.

that isn't what I said, Charleen. I was referring to the general (abstract) principle that one shouldn't rule out a possibilitie a priori when deciding how to interpret a situation. Those contradictions, MIGHT be indications of utter error on the part of the writers. They MIGHT be an indication of the inability of us Moderns to understand them. They MIGHT be due to lack of knowledge on our part of their written perspective. They MIGHT be an indication that the whole Bible is nonsense.

NOte in the above, I didn't say that the Gospel was nonsense. What I am saying is that you only allow for certain possibilities to be true and rule out the possibility that the Bible might be wrong. In other words you are engaging in a great game of head-I-win;tails-you-lose. Any data which supports the Bible is viewed as confirmatory of the Scripture but if something seems to contradict the Bible, then the Scripture is ,by fiat, declared to be allegorical and thus true. So you turn contradictions to support by changing how you view that passage. Any historically false passage is true allegorically any historically true passage is true historically. This protects the Bible in an illogical way. But this is the same method the YECs use. If science supports the Bible then the Bible is true. If science doesn't support the Bible, then the science is declared false and the Bible would be true IF we had access to True science. To me, the methodology stinks. It isn't anything personal, it is the methodology I find distasteful. And both sides engage in it.

Is the parable of the sower a true account?

That is not my point. My point concerns the methodology you use. If a passage conflicts with science you declare it to be a parable and thus the Bible is true. If it doesn't conflict, then it shows how true the Bible is.

He DID create the sky, He DID create the the land, He DID create the plants, He DID create the sun, moon, and stars, He DID create sea life and birds, He DID create land animals and humans. God gets credit for it, what more do you need? You said yourself you don't need it to be a scientific document, so what more do you need?

If he did that, why do you insist on calling this an allegory? Seems to me at least part of this passage is conveying reality. As I said in an earlier post today, if we retreat and deliver to the atheists the sphere of reality and we keep all those allegorical truths, then we have nothing to offer someone searching for reality.

I spent 20+ years living in a dream world of YEC. I ignored logic, I ignored data, I explained all my problems away by the same games I see YEC and TE use. I won't go back to that kind of self-delusional world. It is because of this that I simply WON't accept the hermeneutical methodology offered by TE, to make any problematical passage automatically safe from falsification by declaring it to be true allegorically. I often think of Thomas Huxley's words I cited this morning. Here they are again:

"If we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority, we must believe that what seems so clearly defined in Genesis??as if very great pains had been taken that there should be no possibility of mistake??is not the meaning of the text at all. The account is divided into periods that we may make just as long or as short as convenience requires. We are also to understand that it is consistent with the original text to believe that the most complex plants and animals may have been evolved by natural processes, lasting for millions of years, out of structureless rudiments. A person who is not a Hebrew scholar can only stand aside and admire the marvelous flexibility of a language which admits of such diverse interpretations."

If words don't mean something, then communication is not occurring. Or if words can mean anything allegorical we want it to, then communication between God and man does not take place. God will say something and I can interpret it in an infinite number of mutually exclusive allegorical ways. So the question becomes, what DID God say?

Was God not powerful enough to actually ensure a true communication of His Son's life here on earth?

But God is powerful enough to actually communicate a true story of creation, and He did. He also ensured a true communication of His Son's life on earth.

You would have me believe one and not the other.

No, I am not trying to get you to beleive one and not the other. I beleive both. My point is that if you say that God didn't communicate some kind of historical truth in Genesis 1, which is what I thought you said a couple of posts ago when you wanted to allegoricalize things, then you have to figure out whether God is impotent, evil or possibly non-existent. One can beleive both, so long as one interprets Scripture as saying something about physical reality. Afterall what is the value of a creation story that says nothing about how the world is actually created? It is no better than the crocagator God who created the world with magic beans. Most of the World's creation stories say NOTHING of actual historical value. This raises a question of why one should think those deities are actually god? So, why shouldn't I apply the same question to Genesis? And that is why I developed my interpretive schema.

So parables are "true" even though they are not historical?

And what of being born again? True though not scientificall accurate? What of eating and drinking of Christ? literal? Jesus knew people would be confused about the literalness about it and yet He said it anyway. What of destroying the temple and raising it up in three days? Literally true or was Jesus speaking abstractly?

Those things are not trying to tell me about creation. If God communicates a creation story that has no connection with reality, is that god God?

Thus I am not bothered by those accounts. I am bothered by a God who would go to the trouble to tell me a false story about what supposedly actually happened in creation. Doesn't that bother you?

Now you have me wondering why He would do it with the gospels.

Either
God is willing and able to communicate the truth in the gospels--in which case he lied.

God is willing and unable to communicate the truth in the gospels--in which case he is impotent

God is unwilling but able to communicate the truth in the gospels--in which case he is evil

or

God is unwilling and unable to communicate the truth in the gospels --in which case he is unworthy of worship.

You tell me.

I think these are good questions to ponder. It is why I said that I hope future information will close those conflicts, things along the line of Jesus walking towards Jericho in one account and him walking away from it in another. There were two Jerichos-an old one and a new one. Romans used the new one, jews often referred to the old one. The two were separated slightly. Things like that might solve some of the contradictions. We shouldn't ignore those contradictions, we should embrace them and work with them. The gospel contradictions are not the area I have felt drawn to. I have been drawn to the Creation/Evolution area all my life. It is my passion. Since I can only spend one life, I will spend it doing what I find fascinating, working out a new apologetic for creation that maintains what is important to me--historicity and avoiding the pseudoscientific crap of the YEC.

No, I am very, very, happy with you that you showed me what you did about human evolution. I did not take it personally. I'd rather be miserable with the truth than happy with falsehood.

It is never my intention to make people miserable (although I sometimes do it). I must confess sometimes I was happier in my YEC ignorance, but the state I live in today is better because I feel it is closer to the truth (although never quite actually getting there)

You insulted me without better knowledge. I believe in absolutes, even though I do not believe that Gen. may not be literal, even though I do not believe the gospels are to be judged without knowledge and allowance of the ANE culture, even though I do not believe the Book of Revelation to be literal.[/qutoe]

I wasn't trying to insult you. I apologize. I was trying to attack what I saw as a flaw in your system of thought. I phrased it the way I did because I felt that you were NOT a relativist and would be bothered by the contradiction. Sorry that it didn't come off well.

[quote]That was not the view point you stated. You made it personal by telling me what I believed.

See above. Sorry for making it personal. I will try to phrase things differenlty in the future. But you gotta admit--it got your attention!

You have no idea my involvement in the past with OEC, which you "whack" frequently. Instead of leaving you out of the discussion because I only wanted to have "yes men" around, I sought you out as a critic because you brought up valid points.[quote]

Thank you. That is what one hopes to do--bring up valid points. We all struggle towards the truth. The thing that prevents us from getting there is avoiding hearing things we don't like to hear. Yecs hate to hear new scientific discoveries because they never support YEC.

So this is another point you got wrong about me. I do not come to Tweb to have "yes men" all around. I come to Tweb to learn. I have not always been open to human evolution, but I was around people who validly disagreed and I listened. So don't give me that "yes men" line.

[quote]Was going to ask you the same. If the gospels have error, how do we know he is telling us the truth about salvation?

Here is how I have chosen to deal with those issues, which are real issues. First, humans do see different aspects of situations. That is why witnesses in a trial all seem to be a slight bit contradictory. So, some contradiction is natural for people writing what they saw. Thus, my view of inspiriation in the gospels may be a bit different than for creation. We have 4 compilations of eyewitness accounts--not the account of a single person.

SEcondly, some of the apparently contradictory events may be different events which have gotten conflated. That doesn't bother me either. Both could be true but we are the problem in thinking that they are the same.

The place I would worry a lot about is the resurrection. That is the sine qua non of Christianity. NO resurrection and we can forget it all. Thus in my view there can be error in the accounts so long as the resurrection is true. The resurrection was observed by several people. We can trust their observation or we can reject it. There is no way to verify it from today's vantage point. It is an act of faith to beleive it because it is not the normal course of events. But if we beleive that the observations of the empty tomb and of Christ himself are true, then we dare not have an apologetic which diminishes observational data. This is why I fight the YECs. When they deny observational science, they are indirectly making the observations of the resurrection less trustworthy.

Now you might say, I am allowing error in the Gospel, and I am not allowing it in Genesis. That simply wouldn't be true. I am interested in HISTORICITY, not having everything literally correct. I dont' really care if NOah took 8 pairs on the ark, but I would care if there were no Noah. My own interpretation where I take the order of the proclamations in Genesis one as pre-temporal clearly lessens the importance of the literal order of events. To me that is not a literal interp. It is, however, an interp which allows historicity.

Maybe your predjudice is because I am a woman and you EXPECT me to be emotional. I saw how you reacted with Dee Dee.

Sorry but this is just so much bull. Why is it that YOU have to bring up the feminist issue when I never did? Maybe it is your problem and not mine and you are projecting it. (I guess I should add, that I treated you here just as I would have anyone else producing such nonsense--man or woman--ask George Murphy with whom I have had exactly the same debate as we are having. He doesn't like my style that well either but we are still friends and I was honored to write one article with him.. I have heard that George is a man so your charge is simple nonsense.)

That's why you can't take the gospels as true, right?

You aren't following the argument very well. I take the gospel as true. I am a Christian after all.

You still don't understand... If something is not meant to be concrete (the order of Genesis 2 compared to 1; the taking of Christ's body of blood; being born again; destroy this temple; the Book of Revelation) then you can not judge it in error for not being concrete.

I agree. So why are you so sure that Genesis 1 and 2 are not meant to be taken (in your term) as concrete? What is the evidence? I have an intepretive scheme which maintains concreteness in both accounts.

These, I believe, are not to be taken in a literal, concrete way. You may have to in order to make them "true".

Belief is fine but what is your scriptural evidence for this? I don't care about your belief. I do care about your evidence that this was never meant to be taken concretely in your term.

Nay, I have said nothing of miracles in the O.T. I speak of early Genesis which is ripe with symbolism and would be in contradiction if taken literally (specifically Gen. 2 would contradict Gen. 1 of taken literally).

I disagree. My interpretive scheme takes both literally and they dont' conflict or contradict.

I would point out that your symbolism might not be the next guy's symbolism. Who is right? Why, yours of course.

Mercury

December 29th 2004, 03:31 PM

That is not my point. My point concerns the methodology you use. If a passage conflicts with science you declare it to be a parable and thus the Bible is true. If it doesn't conflict, then it shows how true the Bible is.Yes, that's a bad approach, and for that reason few use it. For instance, even though Joshua's long day contradicts what I know about the earth's rotation, I don't think Joshua 10 is a parable. Probably most TEs would agree that the account was described from a human perspective, and that the author thought it was literally true. However, finding out that it probably didn't happen exactly the way it's described doesn't invalidate the entire passage as false. God still fought for Israel that day, and that truth is not threatened by believing that the miracle was something other than God stopping the motion of the sun. Similarly, the truth of God creating the universe is not threatened by whether vegetation was formed before the sun.

What you seem to be looking for is proof that God created the universe by how he provided details in Genesis that nobody but the universe's creator would know. I'm not convinced those details exist, and since my belief in God isn't based on them existing, I don't see that as a problem.

Jack777

December 29th 2004, 03:48 PM

Some very insightful comments.

Heaven and Earth created.

Catastrophe (one of many of this scale that occurs often)

Restoration, "let there be light"

There was light. As things went on the sun, moon, and stars became visible.

The Creation story of the Heavens and the Earth is completely described in verse one of The Book of Genesis, Chapter One. Ta da!

A Beautiful Truth

December 29th 2004, 04:16 PM

I wasn't trying to insult you. I apologize.

Accepted.

But you gotta admit--it got your attention!

Indeed.

Now you might say, I am allowing error in the Gospel, and I am not allowing it in Genesis. That simply wouldn't be true. I am interested in HISTORICITY, not having everything literally correct. I dont' really care if NOah took 8 pairs on the ark, but I would care if there were no Noah.

That's loosey goosey.

Sorry but this is just so much bull. Why is it that YOU have to bring up the feminist issue when I never did?

You brought up emotionalism, do you often do that with your man friends?

I agree. So why are you so sure that Genesis 1 and 2 are not meant to be taken (in your term) as concrete? What is the evidence? I have an intepretive scheme which maintains concreteness in both accounts.

You never stayed on the past threads regarding this long enough for me to hear you address the apparent contradictions. Perhaps you will address those issues raised. They are the main issues that I have with the account being symbolic.

Belief is fine but what is your scriptural evidence for this? I don't care about your belief. I do care about your evidence that this was never meant to be taken concretely in your term.

I don't believe Christ wanted us to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. What is my scriptural evidence for it? Don't have any, guess that is why the issue is in the Church. It just makes better sense is all.

And what of Revelation? It just makes better sense that it is not literal.

And being born again? How do I know it is not literal? Makes better sense.

I think it makes better sense that the reason Gen. one and two are in "contradiction" is because one or both are not literal.

I disagree. My interpretive scheme takes both literally and they dont' conflict or contradict.

I've hoped you would argue for it.

I would point out that your symbolism might not be the next guy's symbolism. Who is right? Why, yours of course.

That's right, I'm always right, that's why I never change my mind.

reyvin

December 29th 2004, 04:31 PM

I say again: Quoting Hagopian in the Genesis Debate (p.15): 'Philosopher George Edward Moore wrote that "the difficulties and disagreements, of which history is full, are mainly due to a very simple cause: namely to the attempt to answer questions, without first discovering precisely what question it is which you desire to answer."...'can it be that we have spent far too much time answering questions about creation without first discovering precisely what question we desire to answer?'

Meaning: It IS conceivable Glenn, that you're (we're) trying to read too much science in the account. Charleen brings up an excellent and historically true point: The Englightenment standard of 'neutral' historiography would have been incomprehensible to the ancient Hebrews. Ridderbos (Is there a conflict between in Genesis 1 and natural science? 1957) writes, "In Biblical historiography the artificial arrangement or grouping of material (without explicit statement to the effect that the chronological order has been broken) played a larger role than is customary in moder historiography. Examples of this form is found throughout the Bible itself. So this is something we have to consider before passing judgment. Now certainly there are things that the Bible does tell us. ie: the universe had a beginning. If it was found (as was believed in the past) that the universe was eternal, we'd have more of a problem on our hands. But then that is another lesson, isn't it? For centuries it was thought the universe was eternal and science got turned on its head.

I'm certain you're hardened into the position you choose and at this point there is no argument that will convince you of anything. I'm probably taking a huge hazard here but I'm willing to bet that you've been so damaged due to your past as a YEC, that you feel 'once bitten, twice shy'.

Symbolism and pictoral/poetic language is just that; no more and no less. I once wrote Paul Owen a question about this sort of thing regarding mythological 'monsters' being brought up in the Bible and he responded:

Poetic passages in the Bible do mention mythological creatures. Examples include Job 3:8; Psalm 74:14; 104:26; Isaiah 27:1; Job 9:13; 26:12; Psalm 89:10; Isaiah 51:9. This is not a problem, since poetic licence is often used to express in vivid language the fact that Israel's God is superior to whatever powerful forces are acknowledged in the myths of pagan peoples. At other times, the poetic devices are simply employing hyperbole to express the depth of emotion involved (e.g. Job 3:8). The fact that such imagery is used is no more to be taken literally than the imagery of rivers and trees clapping their hands (Psalm 98:8; Isaiah 55:12).

In other words, if I say that my dad can beat up Superman, that doesn't mean I'm acknowledging the existance of the Man of Steel but rather using a well known image to prove a point (my dad is tough and strong....actually my dad is a drunk but thats another story...lol).

How do you determine which is which? That's a great question. But assuming you believe God can write a text that is true across time and meanings weren't always obvious to the writer/immediate reader, this shouldn't be a problem. Things were often found in scripture that the hearers didn't fully grasp. This isn't playing fast and loose, its a sober statement of the truth. Just because we're not familiar with the literary style, doesn't make it false.

grmorton

December 30th 2004, 12:27 AM

grmorton

December 30th 2004, 01:02 AM

That's loosey goosey.

No, it is a search for history. The story of Troy didn't have everything right, but it did have one thing lacking in most interpretations of genesis--historicity. The event, the big event, actually happened. Were the details right? Don't know, but there was a trojan war.

You brought up emotionalism, do you often do that with your man friends?

When I have gotten the men mad at me, I will try some how to get them to calm down, so I have treated you no differently than I have treated others on exactly the same issue, only with the men, I don't have to worry that they might say:"Maybe your predjudice is because I am a man and you EXPECT me to be emotional." That, my dear, is YOUR problem, not mine.

I will tell you what I have told others (mostly men) if you want to be in the debates, get a thicker skin. I just looked through my database and see that I told Carl Wieland this on Sun Oct 25 19:36:36 1998
I said something similar to a guy named C. Rogers May 17, 2000

I said it to a certain Mr. Rose on Sunday, April 21, 2002. So, some advice I give anyone, get a thicker skin.

You never stayed on the past threads regarding this long enough for me to hear you address the apparent contradictions. Perhaps you will address those issues raised. They are the main issues that I have with the account being symbolic.

I didn't know I was supposed to stay on for some specified time. You had your chance to outline your issues just now, but you didn't. What are the issues you want me to address, assuming I haven't already addressed them.

One other thing to remember, I have spent the last 10 years on the ASA list talking to TE's. I came here to talk to YECs.

I don't believe Christ wanted us to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. What is my scriptural evidence for it? Don't have any, guess that is why the issue is in the Church. It just makes better sense is all.

If somehow, the Catholic Doctrine turned out to be true, and God miraculously changed the elements as they entered me, I would have no problem with that. I don't believe that happens and I don't worry much about that issue.

And what of Revelation? It just makes better sense that it is not literal.[/quoe]

And Revelation isn't Genesis. I pretty much steer clear of eschatology. What will be will be.

[quote]And being born again? How do I know it is not literal? Makes better sense.

I think in John 3 Jesus tells us it isn't literal.

I think it makes better sense that the reason Gen. one and two are in "contradiction" is because one or both are not literal.

Kant came up with antimonies which he solved by means of his synthetic a prior knowledge. That is what we must do with our contradictions. It is almost Marxian but the view that there is antithesis then synthesis in history is a good way to approach some problems. ONe thing I learned in philosophy grad school was that for any set of facts, there is an infinite number of ways of explaining them. What we must do, is search for the explanation. We certainly can't expect to find all the solutions to every contradiction, but there is a way--that is what philosophy of science tells us. Most of them, sadly are trivial explanations and thus useless. But the few jewels which exist are dandys.

I've hoped you would argue for it.

see http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=833051&postcount=9

In general, I am more concerned with people getting their facts right than pushing my ideas or my solution. My solution works for me. But it probably isn't the only solution. But one can't have a proper solution if one's facts are hopelessly out of kilter with the actual facts of nature. And YEC facts are no facts at all.

We are all allowed our own private interpretation of the facts.What we are not allowed is our own set of facts.

Mercury

December 30th 2004, 01:54 AM

What is one to think of a God who has no friggin idea what happened at creation but spins a good yarn anyway (or alternatively allows some lowly peasant to spin it and attribute it to Him)?Do you think God has no friggin idea how genetics works because of the way it's described in Genesis 30:37-43? The Bible isn't the sum total of God's knowledge. To answer your question, yes, I believe God inspired a lowly human being to write Genesis 1. What do I think of a God that could do such a thing? I think he's gracious and audacious. Gracious in condescending to our level so that mere human beings can play a role in his plan, and audacious in entrusting his message in the hands of human writers, copiers, translators and teachers. To me, it seems like a very risky and messy approach. But then, so is the incarnation, and so is allowing those who claim to follow him to represent him to others. Our God seems to eschew the safe and easy route.

Mercury

December 30th 2004, 01:55 AM

The story of Troy didn't have everything right, but it did have one thing lacking in most interpretations of genesis--historicity. The event, the big event, actually happened. Were the details right? Don't know, but there was a trojan war.The story of Genesis 1 doesn't have all the historical details right, but the event, the creation of the heavens and the earth, actually happened. Are the details right? Don't know, but the universe was created.
If somehow, the Catholic Doctrine turned out to be true, and God miraculously changed the elements as they entered me, I would have no problem with that. I don't believe that happens and I don't worry much about that issue.How do you read the gospels in order to arrive at the belief that the elements are symbolic? Is this approach consistent with how you approach Genesis?
And Revelation isn't Genesis. I pretty much steer clear of eschatology. What will be will be.And Genesis isn't Acts. I think it's a lot closer to Revelation than to Acts. Both Revelation and the beginning of Genesis describe things that only God can see in ways that accommodate and condescend to humans.

reyvin

December 30th 2004, 08:56 AM

G. E. Moore was one of my favorite philosophers. I have a simple question. What is one to think of a God who has no friggin idea what happened at creation but spins a good yarn anyway (or alternatively allows some lowly peasant to spin it and attribute it to Him)?

That is the question I would like answered. What say ye?

It isn't too much Science, quite saying science. It is history which is important. It is the need for SOME history. Without it, it is just as good a creation story as the peapod man of one of the Native American creation stories.

Mercury is pretty much getting the same thoughts I have out before I am. :)

I'll try another angle with you. If you pick up a car repair manual and expect it to tell you how to rebuild your vehicle you cannot fault it for being wrong because you misunderstood it's purpose.
Yes, Genesis tells us things that are necessary for belief. ie: the universe had a beginning and man is a special creation of God. Both of these are falsifiable claims. Lee Irons made the point to Hugh Ross in the Genesis Debate that just because his science driven approach to the text may produce a greater list of verifiable events does not mean that it is the preferred interpretation.
For me, I do tend to be more concordist than the framework folks at this point but have began to read their arguments closer.
I realize you dispute the given chronology (and hence your proposal) but its very possible that Moses is speaking in a generalized way also. ie: all plant life is mentioned in one swipe and yes, plants came first. But this is sidetracking the issue. The point is that it's not that God 'couldn't write the correct friggin' history', as you say, but rather you're not reading it the right friggin' way. :)
YEC get upset with FI also and try to claim that nobody ever came up with this 'novel' approach until modern science took over. This is incorrect. Anselm, Augustine, Origen, Philo and Clement all had a figurative understanding of the text LONG before modern science had a voice. I'm not saying that the 24 hour view wasn't a majority, but it absolutely was not the only view available and we should consider that also.

A Beautiful Truth

December 30th 2004, 12:02 PM

Both Revelation and the beginning of Genesis describe things that only God can see in ways that accommodate and condescend to humans.

Is worth repeating.

The Tree of Life is in both books. Revelation is obviously symbolic. The mention of the Tree of Life in Revelation and Genesis links them in some way. I think it lends support to view at least Genesis two is apocalyptic as well as Revelation.

A Beautiful Truth

December 30th 2004, 04:09 PM

No, it is a search for history. The story of Troy didn't have everything right, but it did have one thing lacking in most interpretations of genesis--historicity. The event, the big event, actually happened. Were the details right? Don't know, but there was a trojan war.

Same with Gen. one. But we need to go beyond that to the accounts before Abraham. Was Cain and Abel history, was Noah history, was the Tower of Babel history? Don't know, but I'd like to discuss it with rational people.

I don't have an argument for a position yet. I just know I have problems with the popular positions and I'd like to get it worked out.

The framework guys have a good answer. I think others have a good point about the author's intent to raise up the Hebrew God above the others and that is why the sun is not mentioned first. I also think one of the atheists here had a good answer as to why the fish and birds are mentioned together that I thought was really cool. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43490&page=4&pp=16 starting with post #51

When I have gotten the men mad at me, I will try some how to get them to calm down, so I have treated you no differently than I have treated others on exactly the same issue, only with the men, I don't have to worry that they might say:"Maybe your predjudice is because I am a man and you EXPECT me to be emotional." That, my dear, is YOUR problem, not mine.

I did not realize you made so many men emotional and had to calm them down. Fine, if you make the same "emotional" remarks to men when they try to correct you when you had misrepresented them, fine, I take back the comment.

So, some advice I give anyone, get a thicker skin.

If I didn't, I would not have remained active on Tweb for over a year.

I didn't know I was supposed to stay on for some specified time.

Enough time to argue your view. But obviously this topic has not had enough interest to you as much as debating YEers on Tweb. You've squashed them, now let's discuss these matters. I know you are busy, but it would be really nice to have you join in discission with the TE's here.

In general, I am more concerned with people getting their facts right than pushing my ideas or my solution. My solution works for me. But it probably isn't the only solution. But one can't have a proper solution if one's facts are hopelessly out of kilter with the actual facts of nature. And YEC facts are no facts at all.

We are all allowed our own private interpretation of the facts.What we are not allowed is our own set of facts.

There is a time to move on. If you have not put your view up for criticism then you need to. But maybe you have on the ASA list, just not here, I don't know.

It would be nice to discuss these things with you, Glenn. I am ready to change my mind as evidence presents itself. I think your view does not take into account the Hebrew culture, but I'd like you to argue why it does not matter.

Here is a thread I started where such things were discussed.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36767&page=1&pp=16

But, better yet, please join us on Mercury's thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44264

There are not as many posts in that thread and it is actually still on track. Please join us, Glenn.

A Beautiful Truth

December 30th 2004, 05:54 PM

Sorry this is like a back to back. I did not have time before to respond to your whole post and broke it up. Here is the other part.

NOte in the above, I didn't say that the Gospel was nonsense. What I am saying is that you only allow for certain possibilities to be true and rule out the possibility that the Bible might be wrong.

The keystone of our faith is the resurrection, and that miracle is falsifiable. There is enough evidence to support it as history and to claim its truth.

I am not one to say the Bible is above falsifiability. It needs to be in order to claim truth for it.

Before I deem something as wrong in the scriptures, I need to be understanding and consider the variables of the time. I am concerned that you would not take variables into consideration because they might not fit into your rock solid view.

In other words you are engaging in a great game of head-I-win;tails-you-lose. Any data which supports the Bible is viewed as confirmatory of the Scripture but if something seems to contradict the Bible, then the Scripture is ,by fiat, declared to be allegorical and thus true. So you turn contradictions to support by changing how you view that passage.

I'll admit I say innocent until proven guilty. But I am open for evidence. Evidence for human evolution turned my world upside down but I listened because it is reasonable. I believe errors in the Bible also have reasonable answers.

Any historically false passage is true allegorically

No, "any" does not follow just because Genesis before Abraham is questioned as historical.

I'd so love to be able to speak to Christians who don't believe the accounts before Abraham are historical. I'd like to know how they defend that view.

This protects the Bible in an illogical way. But this is the same method the YECs use. If science supports the Bible then the Bible is true. If science doesn't support the Bible, then the science is declared false and the Bible would be true IF we had access to True science. To me, the methodology stinks. It isn't anything personal, it is the methodology I find distasteful. And both sides engage in it.

I don't see it as the same. Because you don't think it is possible to try to understand the mindset of the early writers does not make it worthless to investigate. I believe we must make the effort to better understand.

But even without the effort we do have what we need from the accounts.

My point concerns the methodology you use. If a passage conflicts with science you declare it to be a parable and thus the Bible is true. If it doesn't conflict, then it shows how true the Bible is.

My focus is not on the science. It used to be when I was a day-age OEC, but I just don't see science as the focus of the scriptures anymore. As I said, the apparent symbolism in Gen. 2 really gets me and listening to how the ANE would have understood creation makes the order of Gen. one so unimportant to science. There are more likely other reasons for the order of Gen. one than to be a science text. And it is not so much symbolism I see in Gen. one as much as a different focus which accounts for the order. I don't believe the writer had much concern for the order to be scientifically historical in its order. To an ANE person at the time, there would most likely been other considerations. The framework guys have a good case, to name one.

I think western culture has judged unfairly and been ignorant to demand something from the text that was never intended. But that is where an understanding of the culture would have been important.

if we retreat and deliver to the atheists the sphere of reality and we keep all those allegorical truths, then we have nothing to offer someone searching for reality.

One, I'm not going to let an atheist or an uninformed Christian tell me by what "sphere of reality" the text is to be judged. They seem to want it scientifically. That may be ignorant of the meaning of the text, IMO. Second, it is not the case that if we can offer no science history then we can offer no reality. If science history is not the point of the text, then to judge it so is unfair. I believe others here have argued quite nicely along these lines.

I spent 20+ years living in a dream world of YEC. I ignored logic, I ignored data, I explained all my problems away by the same games I see YEC and TE use. I won't go back to that kind of self-delusional world. It is because of this that I simply WON't accept the hermeneutical methodology offered by TE, to make any problematical passage automatically safe from falsification by declaring it to be true allegorically. I often think of Thomas Huxley's words I cited this morning. Here they are again:

I'll not conform to the mindset and demands of uninformed atheists and try to deliever what they demand. I believe what they and Christian literalists demand is unfair and ignorant of the text.

I am sorry about your horrible experience coming out of YEC. I am also sorry that the reality you clung to right after seems more important to you than considering other views more seriously.

I have sympathy for those who think their world will fall apart if they look beyond their set views, but it is no excuse to not explore other views. I demand it of myself, and I think everyone should. Who is there who knows it all, anyway? I don't, but I want to learn more than I know now. This involves grief and pain.

"Because in much wisdom ther is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain." Eccl. 1:18

It's the road we must go, but who would trade the wisdom and the knowledge gained through the grief and pain for foolishness and ignorance?

If words don't mean something, then communication is not occurring. Or if words can mean anything allegorical we want it to, then communication between God and man does not take place. God will say something and I can interpret it in an infinite number of mutually exclusive allegorical ways. So the question becomes, what DID God say?

You keep saying this and yet I am in doubt of your really consdering any other view than YEC and then your days of proclamation. I may be wrong, you may have, but you have not spoken in a way that reflects an intimate knowledge of any other view.

You don't need to take the view in order to consider it intimately.

Afterall what is the value of a creation story that says nothing about how the world is actually created?

This is the problem. You think it is only of value if it says something of how. Science tells us how, the Bible tells us why.

It is no better than the crocagator God who created the world with magic beans. Most of the World's creation stories say NOTHING of actual historical value. This raises a question of why one should think those deities are actually god? So, why shouldn't I apply the same question to Genesis? And that is why I developed my interpretive schema.

Christ confirms the Hebrew God, that is why I don't need such a schema and can be relaxed if I am wrong in my interpretation. I know it's true because of Christ. I am then at liberty to explore views without the threat of my Christian worldview being lost if I have my interpretation of Genesis wrong.

Those things are not trying to tell me about creation. If God communicates a creation story that has no connection with reality, is that god God?

We still have our problem of science history=reality rather than theology=reality.

I am bothered by a God who would go to the trouble to tell me a false story about what supposedly actually happened in creation. Doesn't that bother you?

Since reality to you means only one thing, then I can see it bothering you. I believe that there can be a moral to a story and the moral is reality for our lives. I believe all before Abraham and probably even Jonah may be in this category. Do I still believe the Bible to be true? Yes. I want to talk to more people who believe it this way and who have given it some thought. Unfortunately, I have not found many TE's here who want to discuss along these lines.

Things like that might solve some of the contradictions. We shouldn't ignore those contradictions, we should embrace them and work with them.

Agreed.
The gospel contradictions are not the area I have felt drawn to. I have been drawn to the Creation/Evolution area all my life. It is my passion. Since I can only spend one life, I will spend it doing what I find fascinating, working out a new apologetic for creation that maintains what is important to me--historicity and avoiding the pseudoscientific crap of the YEC.

Understood, but I wonder at the consistency between your views on Genesis compared with the Gospels, which is why I bring it up.

It is never my intention to make people miserable (although I sometimes do it). I must confess sometimes I was happier in my YEC ignorance, but the state I live in today is better because I feel it is closer to the truth (although never quite actually getting there)

You never made me misable. What made me miserable (looking back to where you helped me see evidence for evolution) was having a shift in my views. As I said, I'd rather be miserable with the truth than happy with a lie.

grmorton

December 30th 2004, 07:50 PM

Same with Gen. one. But we need to go beyond that to the accounts before Abraham. Was Cain and Abel history, was Noah history, was the Tower of Babel history? Don't know, but I'd like to discuss it with rational people.

THere is some evidence (controversial) that humanity had a single language at one time. But it was a long long time ago, not within the past 10,000 years. For the evidence of an ancient language see:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/babel.htm

There is also a post on the ASA list in which I speak of an article of mine in the PSCF. That article discusses some discoveries that the two peoples on earth who are farthest apart genetically both speak a Khoisan language--a click language. Because these two populations are genetically as far apart from each other as it is possible to get and because it would take 100,000 years for their genetic divergence at observed rates of mutations, and because they both speak click languages, it was concluded by some researchers that 100kyr ago, people had a language. This, with the data Ruhlen has amassed (the babel web page and which I find quite interesting), is totally consistent with the Biblical account SO LONG as one doesn't posit Babel to be 4000 years ago. That is entirely too late.

My ASA post is at http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200407/0017.html

And that is a contradiction for all those YECs and TEs who want to have Biblical events be within the historical period. It simply won't work. All events, if they are to have any reality as real events, had to take place 10-15 times longer ago than that AT LEAST.

I don't have an argument for a position yet. I just know I have problems with the popular positions and I'd like to get it worked out.

The framework guys have a good answer. I think others have a good point about the author's intent to raise up the Hebrew God above the others and that is why the sun is not mentioned first. I also think one of the atheists here had a good answer as to why the fish and birds are mentioned together that I thought was really cool. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43490&page=4&pp=16 starting with post #51

These are good answers only if one wishes to ignore linquistics and genetics. Other than that, well, there is no other than that. What is the difference between OEC's ignoring observational data and YECs ignoring observational data? Nothing. Both cases lead us to be viewed as nutcases who can't deal with reality.

I did not realize you made so many men emotional and had to calm them down. Fine, if you make the same "emotional" remarks to men when they try to correct you when you had misrepresented them, fine, I take back the comment.

I can make just about everyone emotional :lol:

We all get emotional, me included. It isn't something specially reserved for one gender or another. I cry in movies, at plays, when I think of my relationship with my kids. So, I am the last person to tell someone that men don't get emotional. But as I said, in a debate, one needs a very very thick epidermis.

Enough time to argue your view. But obviously this topic has not had enough interest to you as much as debating YEers on Tweb. You've squashed them, now let's discuss these matters. I know you are busy, but it would be really nice to have you join in discission with the TE's here.

That is fine. This is a good thread and we won't have atheists messing in this thread.

One thing to note in all I have done over the past 10 years is rule 1. Ignore NO evidence. That means if there is observational evidence, I either have to accept it, or explain why it is a flawed observation. These explanations must be consistent, coherent, and non-contradictory. So, when I say there is a piece of evidence missing for a given view, it is because when I put my views together in the mid 90s I spent time looking for things WRONG with my viewpoint, not for things right. When I encountered data which contradicted my views, I was forced to dig deeper for synthesis or a modification of the views.

Second thing, I will not treat theology differently than we treat science. By that I mean this. In science we don't go around saying how wonderful phlogiston theory is for chemistry, how it communicates sublime symbolic truth about nature to us. We don't go around praising the allegory presented by the luminiferous ether and come up with reasons why it is true, even if it was physically falsified by the Michelson-Morely experiements. WE simply say they are false and move on.

The reason for this, is that when I was a YEC, I was happily living in a world of pseudoscience and fantasy. ONce I came out of it, I figured I didn't want to go back to that kind of world. Give me reality, cold hard and simple. What I see in most TE viewpoints is more retreat from that cold, hard and simple reality. We move to a world of allegories, poetry, symbolism and declare it all true. But, IMO, it ain't TRUE; it ain't REAL. In theology, no matter how false something is, we never declare it to be false--YEC or TE.

There is a time to move on. If you have not put your view up for criticism then you need to. But maybe you have on the ASA list, just not here, I don't know.

I think you might find the pre-1996 archives of the ASA and evolution reflector at Calvin. I got on those places about that time and people thought I was wacko. The criticisms poured in for months. I defended and defended and defended. Terry Gray set up a debate between me and Dick Fischer. I have always thought Terry believed Dick would wipe the floor with me. After I pointed out that Dick's mesopotamian flood required water to 1. flow up hill, 2. required more energy than 8 people and a few animals on the ark could provide to push the ark north into Turkey, 3. that any reasonable stream velocity would float the ark into the INdian Ocean in about a week, and 4. that there was absolutely no (zero, zip, nada) evidence for widespread flooding in Mesopotamia, I think most people were surprised that their guy got man handled. I then used that debate to appeal a rejection of my Mediterranean flood with the editors of PSCF. They had rejected it. I told them that it seemed mighty silly that they would publish Dick's views which required water to flow uphill but rejected mine which didn't violate any laws of physics. They accepted the article and now several others as well.

After that, I spent the next 4 years studying anthropology to see if it could falsify my views. It can't falsify them but there is no positive evidence in favor of my views of the pre-flood world either. Most people reject my views for precisely that reason--they don't beleive it happened. They may be right. But this is the only way to have historicity in the Genesis accounts I have ever seen. All other views remove historicity and thus, in my mind reduce Genesis to fiction.

It would be nice to discuss these things with you, Glenn. I am ready to change my mind as evidence presents itself. I think your view does not take into account the Hebrew culture, but I'd like you to argue why it does not matter.

If what God reportedly did in creation, depends upon the Hebrew culture, then we don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to theological demands. Do they depend upon Hebrew culture as well? I have a friend Paul Seeley who basically says yes to that. He has an evolving religion as I see it. God's theology changes with the change of culture. That means we might be wrong to love our neighbor in some cultures but right in others. Such a capricious God is not someone I want to depend upon for knowing the path of salvation. My friend Paul (and he is a friend) says crazy things like:

"It is then out of respect for the heart condition of
those to whom He spoke that God sometimes drew back from
telling the absolute truth. Rather than forcing upon men
with culturally weakened moral or intellectual capacities
the unbearable light of pure truth. He condescended to
adjust His revelatory lesson to their mistaken views. He
gave them milk until they were ready for solid food (John
16:12; I Corinthians 3:1,2; Galatians 3:23-4:7) and
sometimes that milk was a watered down compromise with the
pure truth (Matthew 17:25-27; 19:8; Acts 16:3)."

The problem with this is that it throws everything God says onto a sea of milk. Which statements of God are absolute truth and which are milk? We don't know other than that Paul will gladly tell us but I don't think Paul has any special knowledge from God in that regard. It also makes God look like a situational ethicist. "Gee, I might drive my followers away if I tell them the truth; thus, I will tell them a falsehood to keep their adoring eyes on me". That is a terrible God.

So, placing theological knowledge on the whimsy of a cultural taboo is a really really bad thing to do, IMO. You might disagree, but if you(or anyone here) treated me the way Seely says God treats us, I wouldn't beleive a darn thing you said.

Here is a thread I started where such things were discussed.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36767&page=1&pp=16

But, better yet, please join us on Mercury's thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44264

There are not as many posts in that thread and it is actually still on track. Please join us, Glenn.

OK. Then edited to add: Charleen, I would hate to hijack Mercury's thread. He said he wanted criticism of his views. Thus, a discussion of my views would be a hijack. Let's just do it here. This thread is close enough and I don't think we will hijack it.

grmorton

December 30th 2004, 10:03 PM

The keystone of our faith is the resurrection, and that miracle is falsifiable. There is enough evidence to support it as history and to claim its truth.

There is supporting evidence, but I will disagree that it is falsifiable TODAY. What exactly could we do to falsify the resurrection today? If we find a Yeshua of Nazareth grave, I doubt very seriously one could claim that THE Jesus was the ONLY Yeshua that came out of Nazareth. It was a common name of the time. The bodily remains, if there was no resurrection have almost certainly decayed. There is nothing we could do to falsify it from today's viewpoint. Thus, while it was falsifiable to the Romans, it isn't to us.

I am not one to say the Bible is above falsifiability. It needs to be in order to claim truth for it.

ABsolutely. And that is why the methodology used by YEC and TE both is so bad. It risks nothing. The Bible always wins. For the YEC, science is always wrong. For the TE, the Bible is easily made allegorical if there are any difficulties. To me, the method is like cheatin at cards.

Before I deem something as wrong in the scriptures, I need to be understanding and consider the variables of the time. I am concerned that you would not take variables into consideration because they might not fit into your rock solid view.

As I mentioned in my previous post, if God's 'TRUTH' is dependent upon the the vagaries of culture, then is it really truth? Cultures come and cultures go. God should have had the foresight to know that our culture would have the demands it does and thus communicated something of a real nature to us. If he didn't do that or if he didn't care, we are back to those 4 choices again.

It seems to me that we are all too willing to make the science depend upon the culture but why should it stop there? Why not the theology? In which case, was Mohammed's revelation just the next incarnation of the revelation of God and now we Christians are hopelessly out of date?

I'll admit I say innocent until proven guilty. But I am open for evidence. Evidence for human evolution turned my world upside down but I listened because it is reasonable. I believe errors in the Bible also have reasonable answers.

Ok, the evidence. What is the first thing you do with an OT passage that seems to contradict science? Is it to believe it is real, or to find a way to make it some sort of spiritual truth?

No, "any" does not follow just because Genesis before Abraham is questioned as historical.

I'd so love to be able to speak to Christians who don't believe the accounts before Abraham are historical. I'd like to know how they defend that view.

The ones I have spoken with find it difficult to believe in talking snakes. But to me, if God can raise a man from the dead, what is so problematical about a talking snake? A miracle is a miracle is a miracle--something unexplainable via science. They also say things like, the only real truth conveyed by the accounts is that man is a fallen creature, not how he became a fallen creature. I think they are a bit embarassed by the talking snake. NOt having seen any myself, I can't attest to their existence, but then, if we are to believe any miracles, why is this one so particularly embarassing?

I don't see it as the same. Because you don't think it is possible to try to understand the mindset of the early writers does not make it worthless to investigate. I believe we must make the effort to better understand.

But even without the effort we do have what we need from the accounts.

Understand as much about them as possible? YES. Use that understanding to explain away any connection of the passage with reality? No. The power science's creation story has is that people think (not believe) it actually happened that way. The problem with the Biblical account today is that almost NO one thinks it actually happened that way. Which do we chose to believe--reality or fiction? Most people chose reality; YECs chose pseudoscience, and TEs choose allegory/symbolism etc. For Christianity to be viable, it MUST choose history (not literalism)

My focus is not on the science. It used to be when I was a day-age OEC, but I just don't see science as the focus of the scriptures anymore. As I said, the apparent symbolism in Gen. 2 really gets me and listening to how the ANE would have understood creation makes the order of Gen. one so unimportant to science. There are more likely other reasons for the order of Gen. one than to be a science text.

We don't have a science text in Genesis 1. But we better have some sort of historical truth. I would correct you and anyone when you say 'science'. It isn't science. It doesn't tell us about general relativity, particle physics or what ever. What Genesis should tell us about the creation is some sort of history. But it isn't science and neither do I require science.

And it is not so much symbolism I see in Gen. one as much as a different focus which accounts for the order. I don't believe the writer had much concern for the order to be scientifically historical in its order. To an ANE person at the time, there would most likely been other considerations. The framework guys have a good case, to name one.[/qutoe]

YEs there is a different focus. I beleive the two chapters are billions of years apart. One- pre-temporal; two--somewhere between 2 and 5 million years ago.

I think western culture has judged unfairly and been ignorant to demand something from the text that was never intended. But that is where an understanding of the culture would have been important.

Given that even nonwestern prescientific Jews beleived that God created the world exactly according to the YEC interp (why else would the orthodox say the world is 5700 something years old? This is a dating system they have kept long before they were ever western views to contend with. They viewed it as history. So, it is an eisegetical approach to claim that they didn't demand history from it and therefore we don't have to deal with it. Ramban's book records his birth date as 4955. That is according to the literal view of the genealogies. Why would they do that if they didn't think it was real history? Moderns don't realize that there was no reason for the ancients NOT to take it as history. They didn't know any astronomy, geology or anything else. It was therefore perfectly reasonable for them to believe the world was created in one week with all animals accounted for.

One, I'm not going to let an atheist or an uninformed Christian tell me by what "sphere of reality" the text is to be judged. They seem to want it scientifically. That may be ignorant of the meaning of the text, IMO.

FRankly, they are more in line with the way the ancient Hebrews viewed the account than you are. Rambon (Nachmanides) writes:

"G-d informed Moses first of the manner of the creation of heaven and earth and all their hosts, that is, the creation of all things, high and low."

Ramban lived around 1200 A. D. He certainly thought it was historical and he learned his stuff from earlier Rabbi's.

And there is a hint of my view that Genesis 1 is pre-temporal in what else Ramban notes that the Torah was written in the 3rd person and interprets it thusly:

“In either case it would have been proper for him to write at the beginning of the book of Genesis: ‘And G-d spoke to Moses all these words, saying,’ The reason it was written anonymously [without the above introductory phrase] is that Moses our teacher did not write the Torah in the first person like the prophets who did mention themselves.”

Ramban then goes on to explain why it was written in the third person:

“The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher.”

Note that he claims that the Torah was pre-temporal. That was Their view of it. Thus, I would say that the atheists are closer aligned to how the ancient jews viewed their creation story than you. There is one more interesting viewpoint in this. To document the pre-temporal existence of the Torah, Ramban cites Shabbath 88b. That is part of the Babylonian Talmud which was compiled in the 500s A. D. So these views are ancient and not in alignment with what most TEs claim about the views of the Jews.

Ramban cites Shabbath 88b which is part of the Babylonian Talmud. It says:

“R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When Moses ascended on high, the ministering angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! What business has one born of woman amongst us?' 'He has come to receive the Torah,' answered He to them. Said they to Him, 'That secret treasure, which has been hidden by Thee for nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the world was created.” http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_88.html#PARTb

Second, it is not the case that if we can offer no science history then we can offer no reality. If science history is not the point of the text, then to judge it so is unfair. I believe others here have argued quite nicely along these lines.

So what exactly is your documentation for you claim that the ANE didn't view the creation story as one of history? I have provided my documentation for them believing it was history. Show me yours for them believing it wasn't history.

It is so easy to sit in an armchair today and say what the ANE peoples believed. It is entirely another to actually provide documentation that our assertions are right.

I'll not conform to the mindset and demands of uninformed atheists and try to deliever what they demand. I believe what they and Christian literalists demand is unfair and ignorant of the text.

As I said, provide your documentation for your claims. Secondly, one of the problems in this entire area is that no one wants to listen to their critics. The TE's don't want to listen to the atheists, the YECs don't want to listen to the TE's. I often try to point out (in a gross way so one will remember it), that only your dearest loved ones or your worst enemy will tell you when you have a bugger hanging from your nose. Most others don't care. The reason one should listen to the critics, yes, even the atheists, is that they will marshall their best arguments against you (which are precisely the weak points which you should want to fix up.) But since no one in Christian apologetics actually listens to anyone else, wonderful opportunities to get better are passed by.

I am sorry about your horrible experience coming out of YEC. I am also sorry that the reality you clung to right after seems more important to you than considering other views more seriously.

Don't be sorry for me wanting to hang onto reality. If I wanted to hang onto non-reality, I would do drugs.

I have sympathy for those who think their world will fall apart if they look beyond their set views, but it is no excuse to not explore other views.

Then LISTEN to the atheists you just said you didn't want to listen to.

I demand it of myself, and I think everyone should. Who is there who knows it all, anyway? I don't, but I want to learn more than I know now. This involves grief and pain.

Then listen to the atheists. They will tell both you and I were our buggers are.

"Because in much wisdom ther is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain." Eccl. 1:18

It's the road we must go, but who would trade the wisdom and the knowledge gained through the grief and pain for foolishness and ignorance?

IMO you are avoiding pain by not listening to your worst critics--the atheists. Take what they say,ponder it, and then develop good counter-arguments. Look at what I posted here. I posted a defense of the design in the universe and for the most part got very little flack. Have an ID guy do that and see the fur fly.

You keep saying this and yet I am in doubt of your really consdering any other view than YEC and then your days of proclamation. I may be wrong, you may have, but you have not spoken in a way that reflects an intimate knowledge of any other view.

Don't confuse consideration with acceptance. I did consider the path you take, but I find it less than useless. I have laid out why I think your approach is wrong, and all it does is get you mad. And why should I spend years developing a TE view which will never accomplish my goal--that of maintaining historicity. IN my last post I noted why I felt that historicity was vital.

This is the problem. You think it is only of value if it says something of how. Science tells us how, the Bible tells us why.

Until the 17th century, I don't think anyone thought the Bible told us 'why'. They all viewed it as telling HOW. If this is false, then present your case documenting this from ancient sources. Otherwise, stop and consider how 'youthful' your viewpoint is.

Christ confirms the Hebrew God, that is why I don't need such a schema and can be relaxed if I am wrong in my interpretation. I know it's true because of Christ. I am then at liberty to explore views without the threat of my Christian worldview being lost if I have my interpretation of Genesis wrong.

You can be relaxed because your view risks nothing. See above what you said which is inconsistent with this. If your view is wrong, nothing happens to your view of the Bible. That means there is zero risk for you. YOu have a heads-I-win;tails-you-lose approach. If you risked something then if you were wrong, you would pay lots. If my view is wrong, then everything bad happens to my world view.

We still have our problem of science history=reality rather than theology=reality.

Is MOrmon theology true? Is Islamic theology true? Is every theology true regardless of where it comes from? What you should strive for is the REAL theology. One can't tell that by symbolism. One NEEDs history for that.

Since reality to you means only one thing, then I can see it bothering you. I believe that there can be a moral to a story and the moral is reality for our lives.

Mother Goose has morals to the stories. But she isn't real and she has no claim on my life. Should it be reality for our lives? This view makes the Bible no better than Mother Goose and the Nursery Rhymes.

I believe all before Abraham and probably even Jonah may be in this category. Do I still believe the Bible to be true? Yes.

Only morally speaking. It isn't real and God apparently can't figure out how to tell us the truth about creation. This is not a God who can claim to be God.

I want to talk to more people who believe it this way and who have given it some thought. Unfortunately, I have not found many TE's here who want to discuss along these lines.

No, you won't. There are few like me. Most TEs don't see it worthwhile to consider whether the Genesis Account might actually mean something other than mush-headed morals.

Agreed.

Understood, but I wonder at the consistency between your views on Genesis compared with the Gospels, which is why I bring it up.

You never made me misable. What made me miserable (looking back to where you helped me see evidence for evolution) was having a shift in my views. As I said, I'd rather be miserable with the truth than happy with a lie.

Mercury

December 30th 2004, 11:42 PM

grm, is Morton's Demon filtering posts from Mercury?

Just curious. I was looking forward to reading your responses.

grmorton

December 31st 2004, 12:56 AM

NO Morton's demon is not filtering your posts.Time is filtering them. I actually answered one post of your two posts With my debate with dtyler, with my 3 sons, their 2 wives, and one granddaughter visiting here, and them insisting that I spend a bit of time with them, plus having to drive 2.5 hours today to get my eldest and his spousal unit to the airport they mistakenly flew out of, time has just been short. I have answered the priority posts--sorry yours didn't make it. Here are some answers.

Just for the record, I am not required to answer any post I don't find interesting or particularly important. If you say the same things others do, don't expect me to reply every time you decide to hit the quote button.

I guess it depends what you expect the Bible to do for you. Is it supposed to prove God's existence or tell us what we need to know about God and ourselves? For the first, a book written directly by God's finger would definitely be preferable, but for the second what we have is sufficient.

I don't necessarily agree. One of the most important things I need to know about God is that he is actually God! There are lots and lots of deities around the world, all of whom claim to be creator, all of whom claim to have the path of salvation, all of whom make demands on my life. Most Christians, were born into Christianity and thus they automatically rule out all these other Gods. I was born into a family with a very devout but very abusive mother, and an absent, atheist father (he preferred to play golf rather than be at home keeping his wife from beating the sh-t out of us). Thus, it isn't automatic with me that one can start a theology by assuming that Jehovah is the only candidate for a real existing God.

The only way I can conceive of determining which of those thousand plus deities is really god is if one of them tells me something about creation. That would be evidence (not proof) that that deity was actually there to see it happen. So, no, I don't think what you say is very well thought out.

That sounds bad, but fortunately it doesn't line up with the actual range of opinions by TEs about Genesis 1. If what you're saying were correct, the views should be scattered randomly all over the map. Instead, we have something closer to a bell curve -- there's bizarre theories on the fringe, but most people tend to agree on most of what Genesis 1 is speaking of. For example, consider the reason for the days being divided as they are. Practically all TEs agree that there's two groups of three days, and that day 1 is linked with 4, day 2 with 5, and day 3 with 6. As to what the two groups of days actually represent, I've heard them described as forming and filling, preparation and population, realms and characters, kingdoms and kings. And yet, there's a lot that all these views have in common. Rather than leading to an anything-goes hermeneutic, the TE interpretations are probably about as consistent as YE interpretations and more so than OE ones such as gap or day-age. And, of course, they have the added benefit of not contradicting reality.

It is clear from this that you didn't understand what Huxley was saying.

I don't want to get too far into Genesis 2 here, but I'll say that you have a much stronger case for that creation account being historical than you do with Genesis 1.

And if you understood what I do with Genesis 1, making it pre-temporal, then that would easily explain the poetry (of which I am quite well aware). But just because something is poetry doesn't mean it can't be relating true history. Or even true science. The Illiad comes to mind.

For Genesis 2, my reasons for taking the text symbolically have more to do with the magic trees and evidence outside of the Bible. I also find your interpretation of this account quite interesting. I don't think it's the most likely one, but it is one I consider. However, when it comes to Genesis 1 I think you're shutting your eyes to the obvious.

Here you say something I answered in a note to Charleen. I specifically said that many TEs reject the historicity of parts of Genesis because of the miraculous elements. That is fine, but why accept a miraculous resurrection which seems, quite frankly, more miraculous. The willow is a magical tree--it provides wonderful headache relief.

This assumes that the only truth content of the message is historical truth.

For a creation account, I would hope it actually told me something of what really happened. I can't really think of a reason to write a false creation account and then claim it is true. Here is one for you to illustrate the silliness. Two slugs were out sliming on a side walk. They intertwined and became the first man. Being Hermaphaditic, the new man split in two creating the first woman. There. How is that for a creation story. Isn't it deeply meaningful? Doesn't it tell us deep truths about nature and our connection with it? Doesn't it tell us how equal men and women are? Wow. I get a tear in my eye just thinking about the deep meaning here. I will write this down in a poem for posterity.

Two slugs out for a walk
Stopped and began to talk.
United are we
Now man we be
divided neatly in two
divorce is now what we do!

There. Poem and all. Aren't we enlightened?

Sorry to be so sarcastic, but that is the way I feel about this approach. It simply leaves me cold. Explain why my poem is worse than Genesis 1.

So, for instance, if we were to evaluate whether or not the Good Samaritan story was "truth", it would depend only on whether the event happened at least once exactly as described.

Good Sam isn't about nature. Does God not know anything about the world he created? Is that why he tells us fables (at least from what I see in the normal TE position).

I don't understand your all-or-nothing approach. I haven't at all ruled out modern people understanding what they were saying. Do you really mean that because Jesus' stories used sheep and vineyards instead of cars and computers that our understanding of them is zilch? Give yourself (and the rest of us) more credit!

A story about creation is either true, when compared to reality or it is false. It doesn't have to have all details to be true, but if it tells us that there were bananas, when in fact there were cats, well, then it is false.

Agreed. Logic applies. I don't see logical problems in the TE approach to Genesis 1. However, I do see problems in some of the logical arguments you've presented, such as your four-fold choice from last post and your Shannon information application in this post.

Then please elucidate. It is easy to say 'I see problems' and then not mention them. Tell me another alternative to this clasical argument for atheism. IN its original form it askes the question why God doesn't eliminate evil from the world. It applies equally well to communicating truth. Philosophers going way back have wrestled with that tetralemma and you blythely say 'you see problems with it' that others couldn't see. Please elucidate.

IN another post Mercury wrote;

Do you think God has no friggin idea how genetics works because of the way it's described in Genesis 30:37-43? The Bible isn't the sum total of God's knowledge. To answer your question, yes, I believe God inspired a lowly human being to write Genesis 1. What do I think of a God that could do such a thing? I think he's gracious and audacious. Gracious in condescending to our level so that mere human beings can play a role in his plan, and audacious in entrusting his message in the hands of human writers, copiers, translators and teachers. To me, it seems like a very risky and messy approach. But then, so is the incarnation, and so is allowing those who claim to follow him to represent him to others. Our God seems to eschew the safe and easy route.

The question is interesting and illustrates the problem with your approach. I know many many atheists that would use Genesis 30:37-43 to argue precisely that God didn't know didly about genetics and therefore he isn't God. I heard things like this from my father. This is why it is important to actually explain some of these things rather than avoid them by allegoricalizing them or saying that God allows us to believe whatever the heck our culture beleives while he puts his inspirational touch on the falsehood. What good is an inspired falsehood?

Your approach allows god to say or communicate any idiotic thing (Gen 30)and then be home free by explaining it away for him. All the good stuff God does, all he bad stuff men do. Heads-God-win; tails-we-lose. The rest of this is answered by my citations of Paul Seely and I see no reason to duplicate that answer here. This is partly why your posts are not high on my list. They don't really have novelty above and beyond the issues Charleen and I are raising.

As to eschewing the safe and easy route, If God can'tget across to us the essential truths (and given that we can pick and choose what is to be taken literally and what isn't) then we can't be sure that we are doing right.

In another note

And Genesis isn't Acts. I think it's a lot closer to Revelation than to Acts. Both Revelation and the beginning of Genesis describe things that only God can see in ways that accommodate and condescend to humans.

Oh, I see, the entire Egypt trip was one taken via LSD. Look, I have already given much of my reason for beliving that Genesis 1 is pre-temporal. The Talmud says it, the structure says it, St. Basil said it in part. I think that is why Genesis 1 is written the way it is.

One of the reasons I didn't get to your stuff is because I have done a wonderful study of the Talmud's view tonight and frankly it was more interesting. But consider what I am saying with my days of Proclamation view. I am saying that Genesis 1 is the preplanning of the universe. Tonight, I learned that the Midrash Bereshith says the very same thing--part of the Talmud. Emphasis mine

"The Torah was to God, when he created the world, what the plan is to an architect when he erects a building.

The aleph, being the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, demurred at her place being usurped by the letter beth, which is second to her, at the creation; the history of which commences with the latter, instead of with the former. She was, however, quite satisfied when told that, in the history of giving the Decalogue, she would be placed at the beginning, for the world has only been created on account of the Torah, which, indeed, existed anterior to creation; and had the Creator not foreseen that Israel would consent to receive and diffuse the Torah, creation would not have taken place."

So there is some parallel that Genesis 1 is prophecy past. But if it is merely an LSD trip of meaningless gobbledygook, then it has no value. And what I see of the TE view is that it is eisegetical in that it posits beliefs of the ancients which is contradicted by the data. They view the ANE cultures as not taking Genesis 1 as history, but that is exactly what the data says the ancient Hebrews did--they took it as history.

I stayed up late to answer your posts. Goodnight

Mercury

December 31st 2004, 01:24 AM

NO Morton's demon is not filtering your posts.Great!
I actually answered one post of your two postsOne of six, actually. That's why I was starting to wonder if I'd done something to get put on ignore.
I stayed up late to answer your posts. GoodnightAck, sorry about that, you shouldn't have. Mainly, I just wanted to know if you were actually reading my posts or if I'd offended you somehow and was wasting time responding further. I didn't mean to keep you up.

Constantine

December 31st 2004, 03:09 AM

That is not my point. My point concerns the methodology you use. If a passage conflicts with science you declare it to be a parable and thus the Bible is true. If it doesn't conflict, then it shows how true the Bible is.

But Glenn that isn't the methodology most TE's (atleast myself) use.

When I came to the realization that YEC was false and that biological evolution and an old universe were right I decided to see if the Bible allowed a historical approach that was consistent with nature. I don't believe there is one that doesn't need special pleading or violate the text.

So then it came down to two possibilities:

1. Genesis 1 was never meant to be taken as literal.

or

2. Genesis 1 was meant to be taken as literal and is thus fiction, false, fantasy and a lie.

I believe the first not because I need to, but because that is how I honestly believe the text says it should be read. I believe that all the evidence for a non-historical reading are in Genesis 1-3. I don't simply say "well if it doesn't agree with science it must be symbolism". I say "if the TEXT says it is symbolism then it is symbolism".

The text clearly has heavy symbolic characteristics. When I argue my view of Genesis I DO NOT use science to back up my interpretation because that would lead to the methodology you described. Instead I use the text itself and the writings of the Early Church Fathers to prove my case. Thus showing that I am not playing with a double sided coin.

If I thought the text told me to take it literally then I simply wouldn't believe the text. No special pleading, just black and white, cut and dry one way or the other.

Also with the Frame work view it is still historical. Just history told within a symbolic or literary framework. Like how there are poems and songs about historical events that aren't literal, yet they are still true.

grmorton

December 31st 2004, 03:50 PM

But Glenn that isn't the methodology most TE's (atleast myself) use.

When I came to the realization that YEC was false and that biological evolution and an old universe were right I decided to see if the Bible allowed a historical approach that was consistent with nature. I don't believe there is one that doesn't need special pleading or violate the text.

So then it came down to two possibilities:

1. Genesis 1 was never meant to be taken as literal.

That can't be the case since most pre-scientific Jews and Christians DID take it literally as is evidenced by the Talmudic posts I have placed here.. To take #1 as the case, we must assume that they didn't know that it wasn't supposed to be taken literally and thus, either God miscommunicated terribly to those early peoples. Thus, this option seems to me to be eisegetical--something I am often accused of being and then told it is a bad thing to be eisegetical. I think we all are a bit eisegetical.

I am asking for documentary evidence that the ancient Jews didn't take Genesis 1 literally. So far I have not run into any. Do you know of any? It seems to me difficult for us to claim that they didn't take it literally when they did take it literally.

or

2. Genesis 1 was meant to be taken as literal and is thus fiction, false, fantasy and a lie.

I believe the first not because I need to, but because that is how I honestly believe the text says it should be read. I believe that all the evidence for a non-historical reading are in Genesis 1-3. I don't simply say "well if it doesn't agree with science it must be symbolism". I say "if the TEXT says it is symbolism then it is symbolism".

The problem with saying this is that these are precisely the chapters which have the scientific problems and one stops taking things non-historically in chaptes which don't have that problem. The correlation is near 100% so I would stand by observation that this is the methodology of most of my fellow TE's

The text clearly has heavy symbolic characteristics. When I argue my view of Genesis I DO NOT use science to back up my interpretation because that would lead to the methodology you described. Instead I use the text itself and the writings of the Early Church Fathers to prove my case. Thus showing that I am not playing with a double sided coin.

As noted by another poster, Genesis 2 on isn't written in poetry, so what are the symbolic characteristics in Genesis 2-3 if it isn't merely the miraculous items?

If I thought the text told me to take it literally then I simply wouldn't believe the text. No special pleading, just black and white, cut and dry one way or the other.

That is one reason I have gone to the interpretation I go with. It maintains historicity. Without it, I agree that there is no reason to believe the text. But then, I only see symbolism being raised by the TE's when those embarassing miracles take place and need to be excised because they are non-scientific.

Don't get me wrong here. If what you do works for you that is fine. It simply won't work for me. I very nearly became an atheist several times over the past few years, after struggling with these issues. I mentioned my friend Paul Seely. After reading his book, I went into such a depression and crisis of faith that he began to feel bad and worked hard to help me pull out. One might wonder why one would continue dealing in an area that causes so much hardship and hurt. I do it because no one else seems to be asking the questions I am asking or taking the approach I feel is necesssary. Thus, I have to.

Also with the Frame work view it is still historical. Just history told within a symbolic or literary framework. Like how there are poems and songs about historical events that aren't literal, yet they are still true.

I read the above 'aren't real yet they are still true.' It isn't literalism that I am after. It is historicity; its reality. And since Genesis 2 isn't in a poetic form, I think the framework theory gets a bit weak at that point.

Given that the Talmud believes that the Torah was part of the plans for the universe, it adds to the strength of my argument that Genesis 1 must be the pre-planning for the universe, not the creation of the universe. It explains why Gen 1 is poetic and Gen 2 isn't. In my view it is better than the framework view because it removes less reality from the account.

Constantine

December 31st 2004, 05:54 PM

That can't be the case since most pre-scientific Jews and Christians DID take it literally as is evidenced by the Talmudic posts I have placed here.. To take #1 as the case, we must assume that they didn't know that it wasn't supposed to be taken literally and thus, either God miscommunicated terribly to those early peoples. Thus, this option seems to me to be eisegetical--something I am often accused of being and then told it is a bad thing to be eisegetical. I think we all are a bit eisegetical.

I am not very familiar with what most ancient Jews thought of Genesis but I am very familiar with how the ECF's understood Genesis. There were some that took it literally, yet there were many who did not including Origen and St. Augustine (who originiated the Framework view). My earlier post in this thread documented a few quotes demonstrating that (aswell as my sig).

If these pre-scientific Christian leaders thought Genesis was to be taken symbolically then I am being true to Christian tradition. I am not inserting symbolism ad hoc where I need it.

I am asking for documentary evidence that the ancient Jews didn't take Genesis 1 literally. So far I have not run into any. Do you know of any? It seems to me difficult for us to claim that they didn't take it literally when they did take it literally.

I do not have any at hand but I have heard that Josephus held a symbolic view of Genesis.

That is one reason I have gone to the interpretation I go with. It maintains historicity. Without it, I agree that there is no reason to believe the text. But then, I only see symbolism being raised by the TE's when those embarassing miracles take place and need to be excised because they are non-scientific.

I do not raise symbolism with the Flood, nor any miracle in the Bible. I believe that there really was a flood that wiped out all of human civilization, though I believe it was a local not global flood. I like your view of the flood yet I am a bit hesitant to accept it due to lack of evidence that there was a human civilization living in the Med basin. But if some evidence suffaced that there were buried ruins at the bottom of the med I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

I believe in the hisotoricity of Genesis within a symbolic framework. There are historical facts that you can learn from a symbolic view. As a Catholic there are certain things I must accept as part of Catholic faith in regards to Genesis.

1. That the universe had a begining and that God created it.

2. That no matter how our human bodies were made that God specially created our souls in his image and likeness.

3. Wether or not the Eden story is historical, Adam and Eve were real historical people that are the parents of all of humanity.

That means I must have these three historical facts within whatever interpretation I read Genesis. The first and third seem to have very good scientific support. The Big Bang and mtDNA show that the universe had a begining and that all of humanity is descended from a single woman, much to the surprise of the scientific community.

But I do not like to try and prove my theology with science because science is fallible and constantly changing. My theology must stand at all times, not just now but 100 years from now and 100 years before now.

Theology and science can never disagree because truth cannot contradict truth. But if they are in conflict, it is because one has overstepped its authority into the others. If you let your science dictate your theology or your theology dictate your science you will have both bad science and bad theology.

Glenn, before the Big Bang was widely accepted in the mid-twentieth century the Steady State theory reigned as scientific "fact". The steady state theory stated that the universe was eternal and had no begining. This is in clear opposition to the Bible. If you lived before the Big Bang theory emerged, would you then dump the Bible because it contridicted what was then scientific fact?

Faith and reason must co-exist together. But if you have a rationalist's faith you will fear every new scientific discovery as a threat to your faith. If you give faith a little more room you will be a much happier Christian for it. I have faith because reason dictates having faith. The begining and end of my faith is centered on Jesus Christ and the New Testament, not Genesis.

I've reached rambling stage so I'll end by saying that I really think you should stop by the Proving Inspritation thread. Your view on inspiration will have a huge impact on how open you are to non-hisotical views of Genesis.

grmorton

January 1st 2005, 11:39 AM

After reading your other post, chasing down the quotations, I suspect you and I have different definitions of 'symbolical'. If by that word, you mean that the days in Genesis 1 are not 24-hour periods, then my views would have to be classified as symbolical, since I take the days as man's best description of events happening pre-temporally. Your quote of Augustine:

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!
(City of God 11:6 [AD 419])

Merely says he doesn't understand the days. It doesn't say that he doesn't believe they were days. But in any event, he doesn't, in this passage, say the events are not real, historical events, that that is my definition of symbolizing.

Your quotation of Clement,
“That ten is a sacred number, it is superfluous to say now. And if the tables that were written were the work of God, they will be found to exhibit physical creation. For by the "finger of God" is understood the power of God, by which the creation of heaven and earth is accomplished; of both of which the tables will be understood to be symbols. For the writing and handiwork of God put on the table is the creation of the world.

And the Decalogue, viewed as an image of heaven, embraces sun and moon, stars, clouds, light, wind, water, air, darkness, fire. This is the physical Decalogue of the heaven. And the representation of the earth contains men, cattle, reptiles, wild beasts; and of the inhabitants of the water, fishes and whales; and again, of the winged tribes, those that are carnivorous, and those that rise mild food; and of plants likewise, both fruit-bearing and barren.”

This is the physical Decalogue of the earth.
(Miscellanies 6.16)

Illustrates why I always look things up. This is in a section entitled, GNOSTIC EXPOSITION OF THE DECALOGUE. Given the definition of Gnosticism, I wonder if it is a good idea to take such a passage and say it is representative of early christianity. Here is what one source says:

Gnosticism
The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

In your quotation of Origen, you have, in my mind the first case I have seen of a Church father who denied the historicity of the Scriptural account of Adam and Eve. Thus, I can no longer say I haven't seen such a case. However, one must be aware of what happened to those beliefs:

Origen (185-254) was an early church Father and apologist for Christianity. He was heavily influenced by Platonic and Gnostic thought. As a consequence his defense of the faith tended to sacrifice important teachings. He denied the historicity of critical sections of Scripture; he taught the preexistence of the soul and universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved) and denied that Jesus was raised from the dead in a physical body. These positions were condemned as heretical by later church councils. http://www.ovrlnd.com/Universalism/Origen.html
So, while you have a couple of cases of people not engaging in strict literalism (something I am not doing either and thus may be classified by you in their company) in these cases, the positions were judged heretical and because of this, since I don't believe in the infallibility of the councils, one can only say, that it was not a majority view, but a minority view.

I am not very familiar with what most ancient Jews thought of Genesis but I am very familiar with how the ECF's understood Genesis. There were some that took it literally, yet there were many who did not including Origen and St. Augustine (who originiated the Framework view). My earlier post in this thread documented a few quotes demonstrating that (aswell as my sig).

If these pre-scientific Christian leaders thought Genesis was to be taken symbolically then I am being true to Christian tradition. I am not inserting symbolism ad hoc where I need it.

I will admit that it has been a long time since I read the Confessions, but it seems to me that Augustine did take at least the creation itself as fact.
"In this Beginning, O God, has Thou made heaven and earth, in Thy Word, in Thy Son, in Thy Power, in They Wisdom, in Thy Truth;" Book 11:IX:11 From the Great Books,

He goes on: "And now this earth was invisible and without form and there was I know not what depth of abyss, upon which there was no light, because it had no shape." XI:III:3 Great Books,

Now, he does not think the Bible gives the date of creation, from XII:IX
Book XIII:XIII, we find: "To Him he sighs, for he is a member of the Bride[550]; for him he is jealous, not for himself, but because not in his own voice but in the voice of thy waterfalls he calls on that other deep, of which he is jealous and in fear; for he fears lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety, his mind should be corrupted from the purity which is in our Bridegroom, thy only Son."

That doesn't sound like someone who doubted the serpent story. I will say that the drawing of symbolism from a historical story is not inconsistent with a belief that there was a real event. Remember my definition of symbolizing--making the account have no touchstone with historical reality.
Can you point me to one passage in Augustine where he says that the serpent is not real or that Adam and Eve are symbols? I can't find one.

I do not have any at hand but I have heard that Josephus held a symbolic view of Genesis.

I just reread the first chapter of the Antiquities and I can't see anywhere that Josephus could be said not to believe it. His book strs "in the beginning God created the heaven and he earth; but when the earth did not come into sight, but ws covered with bthick darkness,and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light;" He then goes on to treat Adam and Eve as real people in chapters I and II He talks about the serpent without any explanation, and the single language of man. And in chapter III he gives the date of the flood and then says it was the month the Macedonians call dius. That doesn't sound really symbolical to me.
I don't know how anyone could read him as saying it is symbolic.
I do not raise symbolism with the Flood, nor any miracle in the Bible. I believe that there really was a flood that wiped out all of human civilization, though I believe it was a local not global flood. I like your view of the flood yet I am a bit hesitant to accept it due to lack of evidence that there was a human civilization living in the Med basin. But if some evidence suffaced that there were buried ruins at the bottom of the med I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Yeah, that is my biggest problem. I view it as of the nature of a prediction, something no other theological theories do. One prediction of my views has come true and that is that there is now evidence that small brained hominids can engage in quite sophisticated behavior.

I believe in the hisotoricity of Genesis within a symbolic framework. There are historical facts that you can learn from a symbolic view. As a Catholic there are certain things I must accept as part of Catholic faith in regards to Genesis.
1. That the universe had a begining and that God created it.
2. That no matter how our human bodies were made that God specially created our souls in his image and likeness.

If there is nothing observable about this statement, then it wouldn't be classed as a historical as far as I am concerned. One could make it historical if one said it was related to language.

3. Wether or not the Eden story is historical, Adam and Eve were real historical people that are the parents of all of humanity.

Here is where I would have some problems. If the story is not historical, then what is the point of belieiving Adam and Eve were real. We don't believe that Hansel and Gretel's witch was real, indeed, we don't think Hansel and Gretel were real. To me, such an abstraction from the Biblical account comes close to making the whole thing unworthy of being believed. To me, this is picking the parts of the story we want to believe and rejecting the parts we don't want to believe. That makes it an excersize in subjectivity. I might pick other parts to believe than you. How can we tell which is right? We can't and that makes any communication of eternal truths through such a methodology quite tenuous. I don't see how we can possibly trust that we are individually capable of determining truth in this manner especially if our personal truths drawn from the story are different.

That means I must have these three historical facts within whatever interpretation I read Genesis. The first and third seem to have very good scientific support. The Big Bang and mtDNA show that the universe had a begining and that all of humanity is descended from a single woman, much to the surprise of the scientific community.

But the nuclear genome shows conclusively that that woman is not the sole mother of all humanity. She couldn't be. MtDNA coalesces in about 100kyr, but the nuclear genome takes 4 to 9 times longer to coalesce. Thus, humanities genetic history goes back much much further and Christians have been sold a bill of goods with the apologetical treatment of mtDNA Eve. She was just one among a population of people alive at the time, but Christians treat her as if she is the sole mother alive.

But I do not like to try and prove my theology with science because science is fallible and constantly changing. My theology must stand at all times, not just now but 100 years from now and 100 years before now.

I think we will fail if we don't incorporates some observational verification in our theology. I always liked Tipler's quotation:

"Of course, the real reason modern theologians want to keep science divorced from religion is to retain some intellectual territory forever protected from the advance of science. This can only be done if the possibility of scientific investigation of the subject matter is ruled out a priori. Theologians were badly burned in the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. Such a strategy seriously underestimates the power of science, which is continually solving problems philosophers and theologians have decreed forever beyond the ability of science to solve."

But this approach removes Christianity from reality. Science tells us real things and Religion tells us warm and fuzzy things.

Theology and science can never disagree because truth cannot contradict truth. But if they are in conflict, it is because one has overstepped its authority into the others. If you let your science dictate your theology or your theology dictate your science you will have both bad science and bad theology.

Theology and science will never disagree if they are defined as Gould defines them as referring to entirely different realms or thought. But that makes Religion the king of the unreal and science the king of reality. To me, if religion has no rubber meeting the road of reality, then it is not worth bothering with. It would be a self-delusion as bad as that of YEC and that is why I can't go the direction you are.

Glenn, before the Big Bang was widely accepted in the mid-twentieth century the Steady State theory reigned as scientific "fact". The steady state theory stated that the universe was eternal and had no begining. This is in clear opposition to the Bible. If you lived before the Big Bang theory emerged, would you then dump the Bible because it contridicted what was then scientific fact?

The difference between then and now in cosmology was observational evidence. The only real observational evidence for the Steady State was the time required to manufacture biological polymers through chance. Hoyle has argued this position for a long time. But that is more of a philosophical position rather than hard observatoinal fact. Besides, there still was a well argued and unrefuted cosmic egg position of Gamow which morphed into the Big Bang. BTW the name Big Bang was a derisive term used by Hoyle, I believe.

Faith and reason must co-exist together. But if you have a rationalist's faith you will fear every new scientific discovery as a threat to your faith. If you give faith a little more room you will be a much happier Christian for it. I have faith because reason dictates having faith. The begining and end of my faith is centered on Jesus Christ and the New Testament, not Genesis.

The opposite of a rationalist faith is an irrationalist faith. I would rather live with science as a threat than go to an irrational position like that of YEC or even as I see it, the position of most TE's (sorry, it is just the way I see it)

I've reached rambling stage so I'll end by saying that I really think you should stop by the Proving Inspritation thread. Your view on inspiration will have a huge impact on how open you are to non-hisotical views of Genesis.

I don't think I believe that God dictated to a dictaphone. But on the other hand, if God is unable to convey anything meaningful about the real world to a real person, then he is not very much of a God now, is he?

reyvin

January 1st 2005, 03:47 PM

After reading your other post, chasing down the quotations, I suspect you and I have different definitions of 'symbolical'. If by that word, you mean that the days in Genesis 1 are not 24-hour periods, then my views would have to be classified as symbolical, since I take the days as man's best description of events happening pre-temporally. Your quote of Augustine:

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!
(City of God 11:6 [AD 419])

Merely says he doesn't understand the days. It doesn't say that he doesn't believe they were days. But in any event, he doesn't, in this passage, say the events are not real, historical events, that that is my definition of symbolizing.

Your quotation of Clement,
“That ten is a sacred number, it is superfluous to say now. And if the tables that were written were the work of God, they will be found to exhibit physical creation. For by the "finger of God" is understood the power of God, by which the creation of heaven and earth is accomplished; of both of which the tables will be understood to be symbols. For the writing and handiwork of God put on the table is the creation of the world.

And the Decalogue, viewed as an image of heaven, embraces sun and moon, stars, clouds, light, wind, water, air, darkness, fire. This is the physical Decalogue of the heaven. And the representation of the earth contains men, cattle, reptiles, wild beasts; and of the inhabitants of the water, fishes and whales; and again, of the winged tribes, those that are carnivorous, and those that rise mild food; and of plants likewise, both fruit-bearing and barren.”

This is the physical Decalogue of the earth.
(Miscellanies 6.16)

Illustrates why I always look things up. This is in a section entitled, GNOSTIC EXPOSITION OF THE DECALOGUE. Given the definition of Gnosticism, I wonder if it is a good idea to take such a passage and say it is representative of early christianity. Here is what one source says:

Gnosticism
The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

In your quotation of Origen, you have, in my mind the first case I have seen of a Church father who denied the historicity of the Scriptural account of Adam and Eve. Thus, I can no longer say I haven't seen such a case. However, one must be aware of what happened to those beliefs:

Origen (185-254) was an early church Father and apologist for Christianity. He was heavily influenced by Platonic and Gnostic thought. As a consequence his defense of the faith tended to sacrifice important teachings. He denied the historicity of critical sections of Scripture; he taught the preexistence of the soul and universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved) and denied that Jesus was raised from the dead in a physical body. These positions were condemned as heretical by later church councils. http://www.ovrlnd.com/Universalism/Origen.html
So, while you have a couple of cases of people not engaging in strict literalism (something I am not doing either and thus may be classified by you in their company) in these cases, the positions were judged heretical and because of this, since I don't believe in the infallibility of the councils, one can only say, that it was not a majority view, but a minority view.

I will admit that it has been a long time since I read the Confessions, but it seems to me that Augustine did take at least the creation itself as fact.
"In this Beginning, O God, has Thou made heaven and earth, in Thy Word, in Thy Son, in Thy Power, in They Wisdom, in Thy Truth;" Book 11:IX:11 From the Great Books,

He goes on: "And now this earth was invisible and without form and there was I know not what depth of abyss, upon which there was no light, because it had no shape." XI:III:3 Great Books,

Now, he does not think the Bible gives the date of creation, from XII:IX
Book XIII:XIII, we find: "To Him he sighs, for he is a member of the Bride[550]; for him he is jealous, not for himself, but because not in his own voice but in the voice of thy waterfalls he calls on that other deep, of which he is jealous and in fear; for he fears lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety, his mind should be corrupted from the purity which is in our Bridegroom, thy only Son."

That doesn't sound like someone who doubted the serpent story. I will say that the drawing of symbolism from a historical story is not inconsistent with a belief that there was a real event. Remember my definition of symbolizing--making the account have no touchstone with historical reality.
Can you point me to one passage in Augustine where he says that the serpent is not real or that Adam and Eve are symbols? I can't find one.

I just reread the first chapter of the Antiquities and I can't see anywhere that Josephus could be said not to believe it. His book strs "in the beginning God created the heaven and he earth; but when the earth did not come into sight, but ws covered with bthick darkness,and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light;" He then goes on to treat Adam and Eve as real people in chapters I and II He talks about the serpent without any explanation, and the single language of man. And in chapter III he gives the date of the flood and then says it was the month the Macedonians call dius. That doesn't sound really symbolical to me.
I don't know how anyone could read him as saying it is symbolic.

I can't speak for everyone Glenn, but the point to looking at what others in the pre-science age isn't to follow exactly in their footsteps but to simply open our eyes to the FACT that there were (and are) different methods of interpretation. I pointed this out to Socrates a long while back when he tried the 'all the ancients held the 24 hour view' approach which as I've said before, is patently false.
Now, bringing up the Talmud is all fine and good. This is helpful in learning yet another point of view but that doesn't make it gospel (no offense intended to anyone there). After all, the Talmud rejects Jesus so by your logic of adhering to it, should you then reject Christ?

Here is where I would have some problems. If the story is not historical, then what is the point of belieiving Adam and Eve were real. We don't believe that Hansel and Gretel's witch was real, indeed, we don't think Hansel and Gretel were real. To me, such an abstraction from the Biblical account comes close to making the whole thing unworthy of being believed. To me, this is picking the parts of the story we want to believe and rejecting the parts we don't want to believe. That makes it an excersize in subjectivity. I might pick other parts to believe than you. How can we tell which is right? We can't and that makes any communication of eternal truths through such a methodology quite tenuous. I don't see how we can possibly trust that we are individually capable of determining truth in this manner especially if our personal truths drawn from the story are different.

I'm with you here. You can't say Adam and Eve are not historical and have the theology stand together coherantly I don't think.

I think we will fail if we don't incorporates some observational verification in our theology. I always liked Tipler's quotation:

"Of course, the real reason modern theologians want to keep science divorced from religion is to retain some intellectual territory forever protected from the advance of science. This can only be done if the possibility of scientific investigation of the subject matter is ruled out a priori. Theologians were badly burned in the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. Such a strategy seriously underestimates the power of science, which is continually solving problems philosophers and theologians have decreed forever beyond the ability of science to solve."

But this approach removes Christianity from reality. Science tells us real things and Religion tells us warm and fuzzy things.

Never been into Gould's happy-world NOMA approach either. I doubt many really have (but I've not taken a survey or anything...heh).

The difference between then and now in cosmology was observational evidence. The only real observational evidence for the Steady State was the time required to manufacture biological polymers through chance. Hoyle has argued this position for a long time. But that is more of a philosophical position rather than hard observatoinal fact. Besides, there still was a well argued and unrefuted cosmic egg position of Gamow which morphed into the Big Bang. BTW the name Big Bang was a derisive term used by Hoyle, I believe.

Yes it was Hoyle. But the point he was bringing up is that steady state was the order of the day for centuries and we as Christians looked bad.

I don't think I believe that God dictated to a dictaphone. But on the other hand, if God is unable to convey anything meaningful about the real world to a real person, then he is not very much of a God now, is he?

Like I said before, depends on what He was conveying.
For the record, I'm still nowhere near being a convinced evolutionist. While not a scientist, I find ID pretty convincing and do not understand why anyone calls it another 'god-of-the-gaps' program. I'm sure that last comment will spark a fire so I'll give an example. Evolutionists brought up the item of vestigial organs as being evidence for evolution. But then because we kept on studying, we found usage in many of these said vestigial organs. It seems to me that ID would assume function whereas evolutionary theory (in it's materialistic form) would not. But again, I don't want to hijack this thread off topic. Going on the assumption that the evolutionary paradigm is correct, I don't see where this leaves us in trouble.

A Beautiful Truth

January 1st 2005, 05:27 PM

THere is some evidence (controversial) that humanity had a single language at one time. But it was a long long time ago, not within the past 10,000 years. So not within the range allowed by the Hebrews.And that is a contradiction for all those YECs and TEs who want to have Biblical events be within the historical period. It simply won't work. All events, if they are to have any reality as real events, had to take place 10-15 times longer ago than that AT LEAST.Not all Biblical events, just those before Abraham, right?These are good answers only if one wishes to ignore linquistics and genetics. Other than that, well, there is no other than that. What is the difference between OEC's ignoring observational data and YECs ignoring observational data? But TE's who don't believe it is history before Abraham don't do either.Second thing, I will not treat theology differently than we treat science. ...The reason for this, is that when I was a YEC, I was happily living in a world of pseudoscience and fantasy. ONce I came out of it, I figured I didn't want to go back to that kind of world. Give me reality, cold hard and simple. What I see in most TE viewpoints is more retreat from that cold, hard and simple reality. We move to a world of allegories, poetry, symbolism and declare it all true. But, IMO, it ain't TRUE; it ain't REAL. In theology, no matter how false something is, we never declare it to be false--YEC or TE.We differ, obviously, here. I don't think if accounts before Abraham are moral stories that means they are false. Terry Gray set up a debate between me and Dick Fischer. I have always thought Terry believed Dick would wipe the floor with me. After I pointed out that Dick's mesopotamian flood required water to 1. flow up hill, 2. required more energy than 8 people and a few animals on the ark could provide to push the ark north into Turkey, 3. that any reasonable stream velocity would float the ark into the INdian Ocean in about a week, and 4. that there was absolutely no (zero, zip, nada) evidence for widespread flooding in Mesopotamia, I think most people were surprised that their guy got man handled. I then used that debate to appeal a rejection of my Mediterranean flood with the editors of PSCF. They had rejected it. I told them that it seemed mighty silly that they would publish Dick's views which required water to flow uphill but rejected mine which didn't violate any laws of physics. They accepted the article and now several others as well.If it is not historical, there is no problem with the science. But I've been meaning to ask you anyway, what do you do with the "mountains of Ararat" in your view, historical?If what God reportedly did in creation, depends upon the Hebrew culture, No, but conveyed in a way that would have been meaningful to them. Such as the order of Gen. one placed in an order meaningful to them "It is then out of respect for the heart condition of
those to whom He spoke that God sometimes drew back from
telling the absolute truth. Rather than forcing upon men
with culturally weakened moral or intellectual capacities
the unbearable light of pure truth. He condescended to
adjust His revelatory lesson to their mistaken views. He
gave them milk until they were ready for solid food (John
16:12; I Corinthians 3:1,2; Galatians 3:23-4:7) and
sometimes that milk was a watered down compromise with the
pure truth (Matthew 17:25-27; 19:8; Acts 16:3)." I don't agree that God would have revealed falsehood. I do agree that He would have given them what would have been meaningful to them.The problem with this is that it throws everything God says onto a sea of milk. Which statements of God are absolute truth and which are milk?
Ever discussed the slavery issue with a critic? You *HAVE TO* take the culture at the time into consideration to answer.

Staying in early Genesis has perhaps shielded you from the many other apologetic issues out there. Perhaps given you idealistic and unrealistic parameters. I'd very much like to know if your mindset would carry you through the many other challenges there are to our faith outside of Genesis.
We don't know other than that Paul will gladly tell us but I don't think Paul has any special knowledge from God in that regard. It also makes God look like a situational ethicist. "Gee, I might drive my followers away if I tell them the truth; thus, I will tell them a falsehood to keep their adoring eyes on me". That is a terrible God.Quite obviously is not true. As a side note, I tell people who say they don't want to lay down rules for their kids because they might rebel, that God KNEW His children would rebel and He laid down His rules in spite of it. There is a standard and our failure cannot change that standard.There is supporting evidence, but I will disagree that it is falsifiable TODAY. What exactly could we do to falsify the resurrection today? The argument for the resurrection is falsifiable. But it has withstood two thousand years of criticism.
ABsolutely. And that is why the methodology used by YEC and TE both is so bad. It risks nothing. The Bible always wins. For the YEC, science is always wrong. For the TE, the Bible is easily made allegorical if there are any difficulties. To me, the method is like cheatin at cards. Have you met any TE's who allegorize the N.T.? Why not? As I mentioned in my previous post, if God's 'TRUTH' is dependent upon the the vagaries of culture, then is it really truth? Cultures come and cultures go. God should have had the foresight to know that our culture would have the demands it does and thus communicated something of a real nature to us. If he didn't do that or if he didn't care, we are back to those 4 choices again.Do you find much truth in the Psalms? In Revelation?

Does the fulfilled prophecies of Christ ever disturb you that many don't seem to be as consise as you may want? What do you do about it?It seems to me that we are all too willing to make the science depend upon the culture but why should it stop there? It gives God credit for making all life but that is as far as the science goes.Why not the theology? In which case, was Mohammed's revelation just the next incarnation of the revelation of God and now we Christians are hopelessly out of date?
Does an answer to this really depend on whether events before Abraham were historical? How so?Ok, the evidence. What is the first thing you do with an OT passage that seems to contradict science? Is it to believe it is real, or to find a way to make it some sort of spiritual truth?Try to understand the concept from the point of view of the writer. Isn't that fair? Perhaps that's why the writer had fish and birds on the same day in Gen. one. The ones I have spoken with find it difficult to believe in talking snakes. But to me, if God can raise a man from the dead, what is so problematical about a talking snake? A miracle is a miracle is a miracle--something unexplainable via science. They also say things like, the only real truth conveyed by the accounts is that man is a fallen creature, not how he became a fallen creature. I think they are a bit embarassed by the talking snake. NOt having seen any myself, I can't attest to their existence, but then, if we are to believe any miracles, why is this one so particularly embarassing?I have no problem believing in talking snakes or a talking donkey. But there seems to be so much symbolism there in that account. It seems to have more meaning seen that way.Understand as much about them as possible? YES. Use that understanding to explain away any connection of the passage with reality?
Reality is not used properly by you here, but I know the point you are trying to make by saying it. No. The power science's creation story has is that people think (not believe) it actually happened that way. The problem with the Biblical account today is that almost NO one thinks it actually happened that way. Which do we chose to believe--reality or fiction? Most people chose reality; YECs chose pseudoscience, and TEs choose allegory/symbolism etc. For Christianity to be viable, it MUST choose history (not literalism)I don't see the connect that it has to be history in order to be true. But we are working on it...
We don't have a science text in Genesis 1. But we better have some sort of historical truth. It's already a given that God created in Gen. 1. The order does not have to be historical, it has to be meaningful. It is. It may be an analogy of a work week with the order placed in a way meaninful to an ancient. Gen. two ,I believe, is symbolic.I would correct you and anyone when you say 'science'. It isn't science. It doesn't tell us about general relativity, particle physics or what ever. What Genesis should tell us about the creation is some sort of history. But it isn't science and neither do I require science.Understood. And we ought to make a distinction between Gen. one and Gen. two. Gen. one we both agree is not science. Good. But to get it historical, which you believe you need to defend Christianity, is that God proclaimed these acts. I see that as a stretch in order to force fit your need for history into the text. I see it more simply. God gets credit as the creator of life and the order which it is given is insignificant to make the point. The significance of the order is a great topic under consideration. I enjoy listening to the views on this.Given that even nonwestern prescientific Jews beleived that God created the world exactly according to the YEC interp (why else would the orthodox say the world is 5700 something years old? This is a dating system they have kept long before they were ever western views to contend with. They viewed it as history. So, it is an eisegetical approach to claim that they didn't demand history from it and therefore we don't have to deal with it. Ramban's book records his birth date as 4955. That is according to the literal view of the genealogies. Why would they do that if they didn't think it was real history? Moderns don't realize that there was no reason for the ancients NOT to take it as history. They didn't know any astronomy, geology or anything else. It was therefore perfectly reasonable for them to believe the world was created in one week with all animals accounted for.I still have questions I need answered, these are among them.Ramban lived around 1200 A. D. He certainly thought it was historical and he learned his stuff from earlier Rabbi's.Would 1200 A.D. still be considered ANE? I think we have to go back farther. Quote Taken From:
Ramban (Nachmanides) Commentary on the Torah, Trans. by Dr. Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971), p. 8
“The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher.”
Copyright respective of citation source. Well, we could have a early church father debate. It's nice you have someone thinking along your lines. The others here have quoted early church fathers as well. So what exactly is your documentation for you claim that the ANE didn't view the creation story as one of history? I have provided my documentation for them believing it was history. Show me yours for them believing it wasn't history. I'd like to see documentation further back, in the era of the Enuma Elish and in the era of Moses. I have not yet had my hands on any such source of information. If I only had another life to go to school, I would in heartbeat.It is so easy to sit in an armchair today and say what the ANE peoples believed. It is entirely another to actually provide documentation that our assertions are right.If you see any documentation that takes us back far enough to make a point about it, please do so and PM me, please. If I only knew of resources like that.Secondly, one of the problems in this entire area is that no one wants to listen to their critics. Not true, not true. I used to be a day ager and I LISTENED to you and to the atheists. Then LISTEN to the atheists you just said you didn't want to listen to.But not every atheist believes that way. There are a variety of positions among atheists as there are among TE's. I need to investigate for honesty's sake and not for anyone else. When/if I come up with a position, I will be ready to defend my view to them, and I'll try. I'll work on it until I think I have considered all the shortcomings. But my guess it won't really matter that much to them, there will always be another "reason" to deny the faith, that's just the way it is.Then listen to the atheists. They will tell both you and I were our buggers are.Been there, done that, and still do it. If I did not care about what they said, I'd be like Jorge. Be a pal and tell me if I ever get like that, won't you?IMO you are avoiding pain by not listening to your worst critics--the atheists. Take what they say,ponder it, and then develop good counter-arguments.I'm listening to you and you are as good of a critic (better critic) than they. But they don't all say what Huxley said, Glenn. As I said, there are a variety of positions out there, I need to focus on finding the truth and then see if I can honestly defend it. If I can't, I go back to the drawing board and work on it more. Look at what I posted here. I posted a defense of the design in the universe and for the most part got very little flack. Have an ID guy do that and see the fur fly. :kiss:
I have laid out why I think your approach is wrong, and all it does is get you mad. What got me mad was you misrepresenting me. Other than that I am not mad at you. I appreciate you very much. You are a hard worker and what you do is done in excellence, and what you believe to be fairness. It's your stubborn pig-headedness that I try to work around. :wink:
Until the 17th century, I don't think anyone thought the Bible told us 'why'. They all viewed it as telling HOW. Why is there a sun? Is it a god? No, God created it, that's WHY it is there. Why is there land? Blood from the gods? No, God created it, that's WHY it is there. Etc. I do believe it handles the "why" questions, it gave the Hebrews their own faith. I think only a more modern person would wonder "how". Fortunately we have scientists who figure that stuff out.You can be relaxed because your view risks nothing. See above what you said which is inconsistent with this. Missed it, sorry, how is it inconsistent?If your view is wrong, nothing happens to your view of the Bible. That means there is zero risk for you. YOu have a heads-I-win;tails-you-lose approach. If you risked something then if you were wrong, you would pay lots. If my view is wrong, then everything bad happens to my world view.I may risk much if I am right, however. How do I explain the geneologies, how do I explain the fall? I believe there can be reconciliation with these, but I am working on it. You got it wrong about no risk. I may even risk more than you, theologically speaking. But I have to explore this to its end before I give it up.Is MOrmon theology true? Is Islamic theology true? Is every theology true regardless of where it comes from? What you should strive for is the REAL theology. One can't tell that by symbolism. One NEEDs history for that.I don't believe that you need it historical before Abraham in order to say these other religions are not true. There are other ways of determining that. Mother Goose has morals to the stories. But she isn't real and she has no claim on my life. Should it be reality for our lives? This view makes the Bible no better than Mother Goose and the Nursery Rhymes.Jesus has moral to stories. Revelation has truth. Your argument does not follow.Only morally speaking. It isn't real and God apparently can't figure out how to tell us the truth about creation. This is not a God who can claim to be God.Have it your way. I see that you like to incite in order to prove your point. I think you would have less emotional conversations with the guys if you stopped. But you know what you do by now and it is the way you have chosen to debate. That may go far when you debate people who have the same sort of learning style :cough: as yourself, but to me it hampers rational discussion. But that's okay, lest I be accused of thin skin because I plead for more civility, keep it up, I'll take it as a given.

Constantine

January 1st 2005, 05:41 PM

After reading your other post, chasing down the quotations, I suspect you and I have different definitions of 'symbolical'. If by that word, you mean that the days in Genesis 1 are not 24-hour periods, then my views would have to be classified as symbolical, since I take the days as man's best description of events happening pre-temporally. Your quote of Augustine:

In regard to Genesis 1 it appears we do agree alot more than we disagree. I feel a bit silly now because you are right about how I view the word "symbolic".

I believe Genesis to be real history, just put in symbolic form via a literary framework.

God really did create the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them. He just did not do it in the order of creation week. The 6 days is a literary device used to convey the truth of Creation. Genesis isn't a myth, it is real. But it is also first and foremost a theological statement. We shouldn't get mired down in trying to match up every verse with natural history because then we will loose sight of what is most important in Genesis.

I think what you refer to as "symbolic" I would refer to as allegory. I do not believe the Garden of Eden story is literally true, but rather I also view it as a symbolic telling of a historical event (the Fall). I believe there were two people named Adam and Eve that were originally in communion with God, but they sinned and destroyed the unity mankind held with God before the Fall. But that doesn't mean I think there really was a Garden in the Middle East somewhere with a talking snake. There could have been, but I think the author(s) of Genesis used literary themes common to Mesopotamia (like talking snakes) to convey that story.

So it appears our real disagreement is in Genesis 2-3 not Genesis 1. I use the same symbolic ('literal' symbols if you will) interpretation of Genesis 2-3 as I use with Genesis 1.

Can you point me to one passage in Augustine where he says that the serpent is not real or that Adam and Eve are symbols? I can't find one.

Nor can I. I do not believe Adam and Eve are symbols, but real people who lived somwhere between 200,000 and 2.5 million years ago. The Serpent on the other hand was symbolic of a real thing, Satan. Satan did decieve Adam and Eve and the author(s) of Genesis conveyed that truth using common literary themes.

I just reread the first chapter of the Antiquities and I can't see anywhere that Josephus could be said not to believe it. His book strs "in the beginning God created the heaven and he earth; but when the earth did not come into sight, but ws covered with bthick darkness,and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light;" He then goes on to treat Adam and Eve as real people in chapters I and II He talks about the serpent without any explanation, and the single language of man. And in chapter III he gives the date of the flood and then says it was the month the Macedonians call dius. That doesn't sound really symbolical to me.
I don't know how anyone could read him as saying it is symbolic.

Like I said, I had only heard that from someone else. So I withdraw the statement about Josephus.

Yeah, that is my biggest problem. I view it as of the nature of a prediction, something no other theological theories do. One prediction of my views has come true and that is that there is now evidence that small brained hominids can engage in quite sophisticated behavior.

If/when we find evidence of a civilization down there I will make sure you get mad props for predicting it.

Here is where I would have some problems. If the story is not historical, then what is the point of belieiving Adam and Eve were real

Adam and Eve lived in a reality where there was no sin. God and man could talk face to face and had no barriers between them. They lived in Paradise, a Paradise that is impossible for the fallen mind to concieve. We cannot comprehend such bliss, so the story of pre-Fall and the Fall of man must be conveyed in a symbolic (representing real history) way.

To me, this is picking the parts of the story we want to believe and rejecting the parts we don't want to believe. That makes it an excersize in subjectivity. I might pick other parts to believe than you. How can we tell which is right?

Bad question to ask a Catholic :lol:

I don't see how we can possibly trust that we are individually capable of determining truth in this manner especially if our personal truths drawn from the story are different.

So not going there. It would turn into a debate about the Reformation in about two seconds.

But the nuclear genome shows conclusively that that woman is not the sole mother of all humanity. She couldn't be. MtDNA coalesces in about 100kyr, but the nuclear genome takes 4 to 9 times longer to coalesce. Thus, humanities genetic history goes back much much further and Christians have been sold a bill of goods with the apologetical treatment of mtDNA Eve. She was just one among a population of people alive at the time, but Christians treat her as if she is the sole mother alive.

Thank you for correcting my error. I will no longer use that as support for Apologetics.

I think we will fail if we don't incorporates some observational verification in our theology. I always liked Tipler's quotation:

And I agree. I think you misunderstand what I was getting at. I do not think that we should treat Religion and Science as completely seperate realms of knowledge. I think there should be a balance between the two. Somethings science cannot tell us that religion can, and there are some things that science can tell us that religion cannot.

When I spoke of letting your theology dictate your science I was refering to the likes of young-earth creationists. When I spoke of letting your science dictate your theology I was reffering to the people that allegorize everything in the Bible and unless they have direct evidence for it they will not believe it. Like the people who deny that there was a real fall or that Adam and Eve were real.

The "Discovery Channel Christians" if you will. I'm sure you've seen the same specials where they try to explain everything in the Bible as natural events exagerated by ancient superstitous Israelites, like the plagues of Egypt. Some Christians go along with this and try to remove the miraculous elements from the story. Here they are letting their science dictate their theology. Some things just require faith, and other things need faith to be supported by evidence and reason. That is the balance I was referring to.

The opposite of a rationalist faith is an irrationalist faith. I would rather live with science as a threat than go to an irrational position like that of YEC or even as I see it, the position of most TE's (sorry, it is just the way I see it)

There is never a need to apologize for honesty. The rationalist faith I was referring to is the type that must scrutinize every last verse to try and prove it. There are some historical descrpencies in the Old Testament. That doesn't bother me. There are some things in the Bible that certainly must be historically true if Christianity is to have any credibility, but if the Bible thinks pi equals 3 I don't really care. That was not what it was written for, it was written so that man could know everything he must know for Salvation. Part of that is real history, like the fact that God created everything and there was a real Fall, as well as Jesus' death and Resurrection. But the Bible need not be a science book or an archealogical almanac.

I am kind of right in the middle of TE views. I'm with you that you cannot just allegorize anything that doesn't fit science, but I disagree that we must make everything historical. I think a balance between the two is best. We cannot shelter theology from science but we also cannot subject theology to fallible and constantly changing science. You cannot marry science and the Bible, but they can be friends who occansionally disagree.

Whatever your views are on interpreting Scripture, you should be able to not just prove them today but your theology must also stand up if you were to bring it to St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas. If you need modern science to believe then how are they to understand in a pre-science world? But your views also must be consistent with the observable facts of the world so Christians do not look foolish. If you claim the world has four corners or that there was a global flood 4,500 years ago you won't stand a chance before any informed person today. But if you claim that Genesis doesn't speak about the real world then St. Augustine will shoot you down.

Balance is the key.

I can't speak for everyone Glenn, but the point to looking at what others in the pre-science age isn't to follow exactly in their footsteps but to simply open our eyes to the FACT that there were (and are) different methods of interpretation. I pointed this out to Socrates a long while back when he tried the 'all the ancients held the 24 hour view' approach which as I've said before, is patently false.

Exactly.

Yes it was Hoyle. But the point he was bringing up is that steady state was the order of the day for centuries and we as Christians looked bad.

Yes that was the point I was bringing up.

Like I said before, depends on what He was conveying.
For the record, I'm still nowhere near being a convinced evolutionist. While not a scientist, I find ID pretty convincing and do not understand why anyone calls it another 'god-of-the-gaps' program. I'm sure that last comment will spark a fire so I'll give an example. Evolutionists brought up the item of vestigial organs as being evidence for evolution. But then because we kept on studying, we found usage in many of these said vestigial organs. It seems to me that ID would assume function whereas evolutionary theory (in it's materialistic form) would not. But again, I don't want to hijack this thread off topic. Going on the assumption that the evolutionary paradigm is correct, I don't see where this leaves us in trouble.

I think I can answer your evolution question. When a biological system is examined through evolutionary theory the question really isn't function or no function it is about findind out its origin. "Why do we have an apendix and where did it come from?" is the question an evolutionist would ask. Whether or not was still functional is a secondary question.

lightmanx5

January 1st 2005, 05:51 PM

Some believe that we must accept literal days. I wonder what their take on this is?First off, I appoligize if this isn't terribly relevant. I only read a couple of entries in :lolo: but I'm crazy like that :wink:

I've done some study on theories of the big bang, and creation, etc.

And I had an interesting thought. Steven Hawkins talks about how you can look at the red shift and the blue shift of a star. I think the red shift is the star moving forward in time, and the blue shift is something that you have to determine with large mathematical numbers :wink: :hehe:

But, as they explored the blue shift, they found that the universe got older and older and older, billions of years old back to this singularity before the big bang.

Anyway, all this to say, that I think it's very possible for God to have worked in seven literal 24 hour periods going forwards in time (red shift of stars)... but leaving it in such a way that when we look back in time (blue shift of stars) it appears to have taken much longer.

:eek:

grmorton

January 1st 2005, 05:55 PM

In regard to Genesis 1 it appears we do agree alot more than we disagree. I feel a bit silly now because you are right about how I view the word "symbolic".

It does appear we agree on a whole lot but I wouldn't feel any sillier than I. ONe of the big problems in these debates is definitions of words. I learned in philosophy one had better try to define the terms and look for alternative meanings in the word use of others. I don't always do that well.

I laughed at your comment about turning the debate into one on the reformation. As an American living in the UK, I saw that society still arguing the reformation. It was sad. In my extended family we have protestants (me,my immediate family), orthodox (one sister-in-law), Anglican (my sister), Catholic (my other sister-in-law), atheist (my father) and shiite muslim (my wife's cousin-in-law and his kids) I doubt you could get much of a discussion going compared with that.

Constantine

January 2nd 2005, 02:43 AM

I laughed at your comment about turning the debate into one on the reformation. As an American living in the UK, I saw that society still arguing the reformation. It was sad. In my extended family we have protestants (me,my immediate family), orthodox (one sister-in-law), Anglican (my sister), Catholic (my other sister-in-law), atheist (my father) and shiite muslim (my wife's cousin-in-law and his kids) I doubt you could get much of a discussion going compared with that.

And I thought my family Christmas parties were funny.

Holy crap, how is it you haven't killed each other?

kofh2u

January 2nd 2005, 04:18 AM

Gee, my feelings are hurt. As a physicist by training, I can't think of anything more abstract than what I studied as a student.

(HMMM... me too.)

Concerning the gospel accounts, some of them at least can be harmonized, some can't presently. I would hope that new info might resolve some of them.

(THAT IS THE PROMISE OF REV 5:5, is it not?)

THat is the nature of what I find so distasteful about most TE approaches. And it isn't my way or no way. It is either history or forget it.

(THE TE VIEW IS RELATED TO AN OVERVIEW: The bible is about human behavior.

It concerns the evolving mind, the Consciousness that is emerging from inorganic chemistry. The Theistic Evolution approach is NOT overly concerned with the details of specific insights from bio-evolutionary science. In fact, the overview concerns a more kabbalahistic insight into how our mind works than it does this one particular science discipline.)

Of what good is the credit if the account giving credit to God is so unreconcilable with reality that it discredits God and becomes the basis for many people becoming atheist? It is like damning God with faint praise.

(AGREED! So, certainly, the general points of agreement between TE and Genesis 1 are, for argument sake, inconsequental to what Genesis 1 actually does tell us, about how man thinks.)

I don't beleive it is a scientific document either. But then one doesn't need scientific documents to describe a true account...
Similarly, the account could have simply said, "out of the slime came life" and there would be no debate about evolution, but the account doesn't say that. Why not? Why does giving God credit for doing something other than what actually happened do any good for God? Was God not powerful enough to actually communicate a true, but simple story of creation? Is HE impotent?

(FIRST, HE DID COMMUNICATE with each generation, speaking to each in the paradigm of their ability to understand. If you think Genesis 1 is difficult for you to resolve as a rational account, if you think that Gen 1 diverges from what we know today as the truth, how much more difficult would a more direct statement of the surprising modern insights havd been to ancient people? Remember, this book has spoken to every former paradigm of human thinking, and miraculously, it is still contemplated here, now, by physicists.)

This parable business is a red herring. Each starts with "jesus told a parable" clearly identifying it as such. Where is that statement in the Genesis account?

(TE needs no such parable classification. TE is basically on target. The literary approach has presented an epic for the Jew which has all the literary mysticism of Beowoulf for us. It describes a Theistic God who transcends the mate ial universe, pre-dates it, is a Prime Mover, who quite well pre-supposes an Absolute Energy prior to transformation into matter/space/time.)

Nothing the TEs, Gap theorists, YECs or any other group offered satisfied my needs to maintain historicity. I simply have a problem seeing why God would allow a false story of creation to be communicated and then take credit for it.

(AGAIN, This is a book aboit Consciousness, about a mind which forms from i]inorganic coldness into a communion with the Natural Processes themselves, and ultimately, with God, immanently expressed.)

Either
God is willing and able to communicate the truth about creation--in which case he lied.

(HE IS AND DOES COMMUNICATE THE TRUTH, ABOUT HOW WE THINK. )

God is willing and unable to communicate the truth about creation--in which case he is impotent

(GOD IS AS ABLE TO COMMUNICATE AS WE BECOME EVER MORE ABLE TO GET THE LESSONS HE HAS READY FOR US)

God is unwilling but able to communicate the truth about creation--in which case he is evil

(HE DIDN'T CAST THE PEARLS OF THE KINGDOM WITHIN TO NEANDERTHAL... because he considered the source.)

or

God is unwilling and unable to communicate the truth about creation --in which case he is unworthy of worship.

(THIS HAS BEEN TRUE. GOD HAS BEEN WAITING FOR THE NATURAL PROCESSES OF THE MACHINERY OF HOS CREATION TO BRING HIS STUDENTS INTO THE CLASSROOM WHERE when they are assembled, his teacher will come.)

Which is it? What are the other options?

(KABBALAH) This may speak better to physicists,by the eay, than the literature of the Bible.

I believe that the approach many TEs take is one which leads to a relativistic view.
(YES. The whole of the bible is relative to the message it brings concerning insights into human thinking and the consequences of behavior that follow.)

Lets go back to the IDEAS.

Which choice of the four do you chose above,

or explain clearly and logically why you think this doesn't apply.

(THE BIBLE CONCERNS HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND HOW WE THINK.)

HOw do you logically get out of it. If God doesn't tell us the truth, how do we know he is telling us the truth about salvation?

(HE HIS TELLING US THE TRUTH CONCERNING HOW WE THINK. Our salvation depends totally on our mind, the only human asset that makes us the present dominant life form.)

You are quite free to whack at my ideas as well,...

(DITTO)

and I won't get my feelings hurt. I might whack back but my feelings are checked at the door in these debates. If they weren't I would be very hurt indeed.

I like your objectivity.

The first issue, what this book is about, that ought be resolved before critically evaluating Genesis.

It talks about many things, TE in my opinion, as early as Gen 1. But, is what it says about Human Behavior true?

This seems a valid question if we understand that the essence of the book is that subject, how, when, how ought men behave.
Is this a book on Human Behavior?

From that point of view, the analogous TE seems uncanny in its basic overview, considering that it was written so long ago. And yet, for all criticism that might be raised, the seven "days" correspond so accurately to seven Eras... perhaps, as accurately as the pathos of the tale need allow, understanding the behavioral parafigms to which it is ultimately addressed.

kofh2u

January 2nd 2005, 06:06 AM

Tickle Me Goody

January 2nd 2005, 08:15 AM

. perhaps, as accurately as the pathos of the tale need allow, understanding the behavioral parafigms to which it is ultimately addressed.
"Parafigms"? "Parafigms"!?

Boy are you lucky that LGM is not listening.:smile:

grmorton

January 2nd 2005, 08:53 AM

And I thought my family Christmas parties were funny.

Holy crap, how is it you haven't killed each other?

WE all kinda like each other, that is how.

grmorton

January 2nd 2005, 09:01 AM

First off, I appoligize if this isn't terribly relevant. I only read a couple of entries in :lolo: but I'm crazy like that :wink:

I've done some study on theories of the big bang, and creation, etc.

And I had an interesting thought. Steven Hawkins talks about how you can look at the red shift and the blue shift of a star. I think the red shift is the star moving forward in time, and the blue shift is something that you have to determine with large mathematical numbers :wink: :hehe:

But, as they explored the blue shift, they found that the universe got older and older and older, billions of years old back to this singularity before the big bang.

Anyway, all this to say, that I think it's very possible for God to have worked in seven literal 24 hour periods going forwards in time (red shift of stars)... but leaving it in such a way that when we look back in time (blue shift of stars) it appears to have taken much longer.

:eek:

This is why evolutionists have such trouble communicating.

It is Stephen Hawking. All stars move forward in time, none move backwards in time. Stars with light shifted to the red are moving away from you and those with light shifted to the blue are moving towards you. And remember that some blue and red colored stars are not moving at all relative to us. It is the shift of the light's wavelength which is important, not the color of the peak output of the stars spectrum.

Because everything you are basing your argument upon is wrong, you might want to reconsider your position.

grmorton

January 2nd 2005, 09:11 AM

I like your objectivity.

The first issue, what this book is about, that ought be resolved before critically evaluating Genesis.

It talks about many things, TE in my opinion, as early as Gen 1. But, is what it says about Human Behavior true?

This seems a valid question if we understand that the essence of the book is that subject, how, when, how ought men behave.
Is this a book on Human Behavior?

From that point of view, the analogous TE seems uncanny in its basic overview, considering that it was written so long ago. And yet, for all criticism that might be raised, the seven "days" correspond so accurately to seven Eras... perhaps, as accurately as the pathos of the tale need allow, understanding the behavioral parafigms to which it is ultimately addressed.

This last sounds like the day-age position. I simply see no correlation of the days in Genesis with geologic eras at all. Indeed, if one tries that approach one must end up with ad hoc overlapping days. Trees did not appear before the fish in real history and grass is a very late addition to the world appearing only about 50 million years ago, so those Genesis days are not normal days. They can be true, if one places the days as the pre-temporal planning for the universe rather than as most people read them as things actually happing in real time.

If you say the essence of the book is about human behavior, then why is it bothering with the creation which has nothing to do with human behavior, especially Genesis 1? That is a chapter that purports to touch on how the world is created, yet, as commonly interpreted, it is all wrong. And for some Tes to admit that it is all wrong but then defend it as true, seems perverse to the highest degree. What sort of logic is that? The YEC alternative is to hide one's head in the sand and deny any and all scientific evidence that might shatter that blissful self-delusion. The only way to solve the problem that I see is to do what I have done.

reyvin

January 2nd 2005, 10:29 AM

They can be true, if one places the days as the pre-temporal planning for the universe rather than as most people read them as things actually happing in real time.

This sounds a lot like Hill Roberts' essay found here: http://lordibelieve.org/Days.htm

I realize we're not supposed to argue by weblink but 1) I'm not arguing and 2) the entire page is relevant.

lightmanx5

January 2nd 2005, 02:06 PM

This is why evolutionists have such trouble communicating."This" being...?

Because everything you are basing your argument upon is wrong, you might want to reconsider your position.My position is that I had an intersting idea, not that I had a well-thought-out debate.

In other words, I thought it was a fun idea.

grmorton

January 2nd 2005, 02:58 PM

"This" being...?

The utter lack of scientific understanding on the part of the listener.

My position is that I had an intersting idea, not that I had a well-thought-out debate.

In other words, I thought it was a fun idea.

Seems that is about all the YEC side has--'fun' ideas that are quickly backed away from. Doesn't this bother anyone on the YEC side?

grmorton

January 2nd 2005, 03:23 PM

This sounds a lot like Hill Roberts' essay found here: http://lordibelieve.org/Days.htm

I realize we're not supposed to argue by weblink but 1) I'm not arguing and 2) the entire page is relevant.

The page was interesting. I note a couple of historical errors here, though.

A very plausible solution to the dilemma is an interpretive view sometimes known as the Fiat Days interpretation. In this view, the days of Genesis are the divine “calendar” days during which God made the creative pronouncements of His will, not how long it takes for those pronouncements to be finalized. (This Fiat Days view should not be confused with Bernard Ramm’s revelatory days interpretation, in which Ramm took the days to be six days over which God revealed Genesis 1 to Moses on Mount Sinai. [7] )

It wasn't Ramm who originated that view it was Kurtz in the mid-19th century

"'We treat the history of creation,' says Dr. Kurtz, 'with its six days' work, as a connected series of so many prophetic visions.'"

Secondly, as I read this page, his fiat days are not only the same as my days of proclamation, the idea comes from the same source I got the idea from--Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution (a book by the way I was privileged to proof-read prior to publication. My claim to fame is that my name is next to that of Fred Hoyle in the acknowledgements). The author, Roberts, also cites Capron, whose book I have and who was the first modern to suggest the idea. Capron placed the days of proclamation (Fiat Days) at the origin of the earth, not the origin of the universe. For a bunch of technical reasons, one can't really place the days at the origin of earth proper so I moved them back to the origin of the universe, which is my contribution to this line of thought.

I am disappointed that he didn't see that the Days of Proclamation allow for evolution. This guy rejects evolution and tries to wiggle out of it. It is that straight jacket of fear Christians have of evolution that will prevent them from every solving the problem and fitting in with the data. And by avoiding evolution and an old earth, he misses an opportunity to have a flood theory that one can (like I did) post on Talk Origins and get NO complaints from the people there. I did it twice. I actually wanted the criticism so that I could make my views better. I had expected a huge argument but got none. They didn't believe it but they couldn't find scientific errors with the Mediterranean flood concept. Roberts will stay chained to the ocean bottom and never solve the serious apologetical issues we face simply because he can't or is afraid to think out of the box he is in.

Thanks a lot for this page. It is nice to see at least one other Days of Proclamation advocate.

kofh2u

January 2nd 2005, 04:37 PM

Gmorton:

This last sounds like the day-age position.

KOFHY:
Those people have not been much more enthusiastic about my comments than are you. zHowever, yes, God created in seven sequential steps and our Geological Biological Clock, the one used in HS and College Classrooms around the world, the one found in all those textbooks, teaches this is true. The "Clock" sees seven (7) Eras of evolutionary stages, names each one, and generally conforms in analogy with the developmentalism of Genesis.

Gmorton:
I simply see no correlation of the days in Genesis with geologic eras at all.

KOFHY:
This is why they make choc and vanilla.

Gmorton:
Indeed, if one tries that approach one must end up with ad hoc overlapping days.

KOFHY:
For sure, the idea of on-going and overlapping development is not denied, neither is it out of touch with the analogy between Gen and our textbooks.
Grass, for instance, is essentially "created" in the seed of chlorphyll containing plant cells. Every green thing ultimately arises thereafter, consequentally to this very singular "creation." Remember, even our trees which appear so much later are derived, by mitosis/miosis, from their genetic connection with previous, lower forms of plant life.

Gmorton:
Trees did not appear before the fish in real history and grass is a very late addition to the world appearing only about 50 million years ago, ...

KOFHY:
Oh, see above.

As a well read physicist, I am sure you understand the biological tree, with all the branches. You are aware that the "root" of the Tree of Life began with single celled forms. Like seeds, these plant (considered the earliest development) and animal cells are the basis for all life that arised thereafter.

This is to say, the analogy in Genesis is not a textbook course in General Biology. One could pick-nit little "bugs" out and make gnats a bone of contention in this amazing parallel between "days" and Eras. But, they aleays end suggestung we "swallow" some wacko horse story in place of this best of analogies.

Gmorton:
so those Genesis days are not normal days.

KOFHY:
No, the Hebrew word doesn't mean day. That the evening preceeds the morning of a next stage is a clue that the choice connotation ought be "long duration of time," yom.

Gmorton:
They can be true, if...

KOFHY:
Here comes the metaphysical horse story replacement...IF...

Gmorton:
IF... one places the days as the pre-temporal planning for the universe...

KOFHY:
Ha! Not :days!"

KOFHY:
Yes, the scriptures are about Human Behavior. This is no little 6hing, either, since the discipline of Human Behavior remains a Humanity, as opposed to a science. And, the best of our "experts" in this academic field plead ignorance.

kofh2u

January 2nd 2005, 05:43 PM

"Parafigms"? "Parafigms"!?

Boy are you lucky that LGM is not listening.:smile:

Hahaaa.. paradigm, ... "sorry!"

Think about the point I make.

For the Jews in Egypt, Moses had a great story. It was of Epic proportion, and connected the Jews, according to Genesis, from the very beginning, as an independent society of men.

As time past, this monotheism competed with the Mythologies of neighboring societies.
From Epic to a myth, a change in paradigm! One hardly requiring a major transformation of the Book, just a slightly different perspective for the reader.

This book gradually became the basis for order in a theocratic society. Read literally, in regard to judging behavior as just/unjust, right/wrong.
In time, again it transformed for a society needing the hope of a divine providence, a higher power to pray to as protection from the forces of nature and neighbor, It became a symbol of membership, a foundation for perserverence. It grew into a symbol as nationalistic as our flags of this day.

Some higher was at work, a mystery religion for the Jew, too, one to compete with the many found in other nations.
It transformed into a metaphysical basis for Christian ideals, for life after death, for God, manifest with man. Certainly the transformation from Bronze Age to Iron Age, to Agricuktural Age raised these metaphysical pondering about the meaning of life, itself.

Now, it is once again morphing into an amazing pronouncement of future events, and as rational view of what and where the well spring of our existence is sourced. It is becoming a rational historic/quasi-scientific anticipation of what we, in this day of knowledge/info are just discovering secularly. As such, it encourages us to look beyond the book and wonder how we were so well preceived 3300 years ago, whike we remain presently, still so bl9nd about human behavior. Why do act as we do? Why are we at idds with one another? Why is/was our long range history so predictable?

Finally, it is about to reveal the secret of rhe ages, "This is how the pattern seeking human mind actually works!"

Rev. 10:7 But in the days of (Christian Humanitarism) the voice of the seventh angel, (the spirit of human Harmony), when he, (that awakening subconscious apparatus of mind), shall begin to sound (consciously in the thoughts of men), the MYSTERY of God, (to be revealed in phylogenetic memory), should be finished, as he hath informed his servants the prophets (as recorded in scripture).

reyvin

January 2nd 2005, 05:47 PM

I am disappointed that he didn't see that the Days of Proclamation allow for evolution. This guy rejects evolution and tries to wiggle out of it. It is that straight jacket of fear Christians have of evolution that will prevent them from every solving the problem and fitting in with the data. And by avoiding evolution and an old earth, he misses an opportunity to have a flood theory that one can (like I did) post on Talk Origins and get NO complaints from the people there. I did it twice. I actually wanted the criticism so that I could make my views better. I had expected a huge argument but got none. They didn't believe it but they couldn't find scientific errors with the Mediterranean flood concept. Roberts will stay chained to the ocean bottom and never solve the serious apologetical issues we face simply because he can't or is afraid to think out of the box he is in.

Thanks a lot for this page. It is nice to see at least one other Days of Proclamation advocate.

Not a problem. Although we've disagreed in the past I had the same feeling regarding what he says regarding evolution. Not that we should demonize those who disagree with evolutionary theory, but I thought it was a bit odd that he took the time to attack it some on his page.

grmorton

January 2nd 2005, 07:07 PM

Not a problem. Although we've disagreed in the past I had the same feeling regarding what he says regarding evolution. Not that we should demonize those who disagree with evolutionary theory, but I thought it was a bit odd that he took the time to attack it some on his page.

It isn't demonizing someone to merely note that the same tired and worn out intellectual positions won't solve the problem. If those who lived earlier couldn't solve the issues with the same approach, why on earth do we think we will do it if we do the very same thing they did? Logic tells us that much, at least.

reyvin

January 3rd 2005, 09:13 AM

It isn't demonizing someone to merely note that the same tired and worn out intellectual positions won't solve the problem. If those who lived earlier couldn't solve the issues with the same approach, why on earth do we think we will do it if we do the very same thing they did? Logic tells us that much, at least.

I wouldn't call the ID position tired or worn out firstly. Secondly it is well known that there is a demonizing of those who disagree with evolutionists by repeating the same tired arguments. http://www.arn.org/docs/news/fingerprints032501.htm and http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=534
are just a couple of examples.

reyvin

January 3rd 2005, 09:51 AM

Origen (185-254) was an early church Father and apologist for Christianity. He was heavily influenced by Platonic and Gnostic thought. As a consequence his defense of the faith tended to sacrifice important teachings. He denied the historicity of critical sections of Scripture; he taught the preexistence of the soul and universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved) and denied that Jesus was raised from the dead in a physical body. These positions were condemned as heretical by later church councils. http://www.ovrlnd.com/Universalism/Origen.html

The interesting thing to me here is that Origen was NOT condemned for his views on creation though.

kofh2u

January 3rd 2005, 02:03 PM

The interesting thing to me here is that Origen was NOT condemned for his views on creation though.

Condemning views... hmmmm...

Matt. 26:33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.

Some ideas are offensive enough that, even in this day, Tweb has set a new arbitrary standard by which the moderators can uniquely decide who is a "real" Christian and who is "outside the tabernacle."

Essentially, the title "Orthodox Christian" will no longer be confirmed by agreement with a listed series of items, a creed.
Now, tweb will infer, not discuss, WHY you believe in this or that item. Why you believe, the means by which you come to their same belief is to be judged as the determining factor.

There is hardly a democractic process here, and even the specific denominational view of the censoring moderators is unannounced. The issue will be a closed door, Jesus apparently is thought to be standing at the entrance, saying, "I won't talk to you about your understanding of my message."

This is not a complaint.

The implication is that they have no response to the view, merely distain. That portents problems in the on-going contest for new proseltyzing into this century. No response to, say, TE is an affirmation of that view.

This Theocratic New Year addendum to the Tweb site highlights the weakness of the present state of Christianity. Truth is always dependent upon the freedom of speach. As these "moderators" exercise their censorship, they underline both their arbitrary assumption into the seat of Pope, while they equate themselves to the identical correspondence with the Pharisees whom they emulate. Do they not?

Matt. 23:30 And say, If we, (the orthodoxy, the pharisees, of our own generation, likened today, to include even certain Christian bible experts), had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the (solitary, self-proclaiming) prophets, (in the human sacrifice of Jesus, called the Christ). Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, (vain Bible lawyers), that ye are the (genetically related) children of them (who think so common to this Modern Homo sapien species) which killed the (solitary, self-proclaiming) prophets, (including Jesus Christ, whom you offered in humansacrifice to perserve a failed Judaism).

Mercury

January 8th 2005, 02:54 PM

This post is responding to a post about a week old. I was away for a week and ended up not having as much Internet access as I expected.
The only way I can conceive of determining which of those thousand plus deities is really god is if one of them tells me something about creation. That would be evidence (not proof) that that deity was actually there to see it happen.Why creation specifically? Why not other details about reality? Any evidence of things only God could know could not be confirmed by anyone aside from God. Any evidence that could be confirmed or verified could be from any beings with more knowledge than us and does not necessarily point to God. I don't see how a historical record of creation would significantly diminish the necessity of faith.
It is clear from this that you didn't understand what Huxley was saying.The paragraph you wrote this about was responding to what you said, not what Huxley said. Note that I said "If what you're saying...", not "If what Huxley is saying...".
And if you understood what I do with Genesis 1, making it pre-temporal, then that would easily explain the poetry (of which I am quite well aware). But just because something is poetry doesn't mean it can't be relating true history. Or even true science. The Illiad comes to mind.Given your approach and your acknowledgement of poetic elements in Genesis 1, I'm perplexed at your insistence that it still be a historical account. In any case, I think the framework view keeps the account more historical than the days of proclamation view. The DoP holds onto historical days but changes the creating to planning. The framework view holds onto the creating but treats the days as a literary framework. If Genesis 1 is just God's blueprints with parenthetical remarks stating that the plan was eventually realized, the whole account seems rather pointless. It loses much of its literary beauty, and it also becomes untestable and unfalsifiable, since how things are planned need not match how they are built. It is strange that you would hold to such a view while still believing that God must provide historical details of creation in order to prove that he is God.
Here you say something I answered in a note to Charleen. [...] I think they are a bit embarassed by the talking snake. NOt having seen any myself, I can't attest to their existence, but then, if we are to believe any miracles, why is this one so particularly embarassing? [...] why accept a miraculous resurrection which seems, quite frankly, more miraculous.Accepting the talking snake as a miracle is troubling for the same reason accepting shrinking animals on the ark as a miracle is troubling: it's a miracle forced onto the text by a certain interpretation rather than one stated in the text as miraculous. According to the Bible, why did the serpent talk? "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made" (Genesis 3:1a). Contrast this with Balaam's donkey: "And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey" (Numbers 22:28). This difference is why I accept the speech of this donkey as miraculous while thinking the talking snake in Genesis is a sign the story is non-historical. This has nothing to do with the size of the miracle, and that's why this approach doesn't lead to discounting the miracle of Jesus' resurrection.
I can't really think of a reason to write a false creation account and then claim it is true. [...] Does God not know anything about the world he created? Is that why he tells us fables (at least from what I see in the normal TE position).Who here claimed it was false? I think the problem is that you've set a very exacting standard for how creation must be presented in the Bible, but you're unwilling to apply that standard to the rest of the Bible. Does Genesis 30 give a false genetics account and then claim it is true? By this passage, can we conclude that God doesn't know anything about genetics and instead tells us fables? Basically, how do you interpret the Bible outside of Genesis 1-11?

Revelation is about nature and supernature (among other things). Does the use of beasts and trumpets prove that God doesn't know anything about the world and the heavenlies? Your interpretational approach would seem to make much of the Bible into nonsense because it doesn't convey truth in the form you desire, and that's why I'm so curious as to how you interpret other passages.
A story about creation is either true, when compared to reality or it is false. It doesn't have to have all details to be true, but if it tells us that there were bananas, when in fact there were cats, well, then it is false.Is a story about the incarnation either true, when compared to reality, or false? Which account of the birth of Jesus is correct, the one in Luke 2 and Matthew 1 or the one in Revelation 12:1-5? Is the Revelation one just a fable because it contains non-historical events, or is it possible that it's conveying truth in another way? I think Genesis 2-3 has more in common with Revelation 12 than with Luke 2. To rework your analogy, it may be possible that creation included both bananas and cats, but the cats are the focus of the biblical account while you're searching for details about the bananas.
Then please elucidate. It is easy to say 'I see problems' and then not mention them.I did elucidate. It's the last three paragraphs of post #17. In summary, the problem is in your assumption that God being unwilling but able to communicate the historical details of creation means he is evil. It may just mean he's given us a brain to discover some things for ourselves and doesn't ruin that by spoiling us with answers to many questions we can learn to answer on our own.
I know many many atheists that would use Genesis 30:37-43 to argue precisely that God didn't know didly about genetics and therefore he isn't God. I heard things like this from my father. This is why it is important to actually explain some of these things rather than avoid them by allegoricalizing them or saying that God allows us to believe whatever the heck our culture beleives while he puts his inspirational touch on the falsehood.I see. How do you explain this passage? If I knew that, it may shed some more light on how you read the early part of Genesis. Right now, it appears that you're either using a different standard for the rest of the Bible or just ignoring any passages that don't jibe with your view.
As to eschewing the safe and easy route, If God can'tget across to us the essential truths (and given that we can pick and choose what is to be taken literally and what isn't) then we can't be sure that we are doing right.What God can do and what God chooses to do are not the same. I don't believe it is essential for God to reveal the historical and scientific details of creation. That doesn't mean I have no idea about right and wrong.
I am saying that Genesis 1 is the preplanning of the universe. Tonight, I learned that the Midrash Bereshith says the very same thing--part of the Talmud.The portion of the Midrash Bereshith you quoted does not limit the pre-planning stage to Genesis 1. Unless you're also willing to take the rest of Genesis, Exodus, and all of the Torah as pre-planning instead of historical, this quote doesn't support your view.

kofh2u

January 8th 2005, 03:41 PM

Mercury

January 8th 2005, 10:30 PM

This is why it is important to actually explain some of these things rather than avoid them by allegoricalizing them or saying that God allows us to believe whatever the heck our culture beleives while he puts his inspirational touch on the falsehood. What good is an inspired falsehood?Here's an answer in story form. I realize you may not appreciate this form of response, so feel free to ignore it. The points in it have been made more directly in other posts.

Fredrick asks his mom where babies come from. She gulps deeply as she was not expecting her young child to ask this question for a few years yet, and then explains that when a mommy and a daddy really love each other, they kiss each other a lot and sometimes this makes a baby start to grow in the mommy's tummy.

When Freddy's older, he reflects back on this explanation and realizes how false it was. Kissing has no direct link to conception. But that's not the only factual error: it's also not true that making a baby requires a married couple, or even that the couple needs to love each other. Why did his mom tell him this blatantly false story?

Fred can think of a few reasons. Maybe everything he's learned about sex is actually a clever deception and his mom's story really is literally true. Or, maybe his mom meant something more by "kiss" than its ordinary meaning; after all, the word can also mean an expression of affection through physical contact regardless of which body parts are involved. Or, maybe his mom was just talking about how a couple tends to kiss a lot when they're planning to have a baby, and the statement about a baby starting to grow is just the end result of that plan. But, none of these reasons satisfy Fred. The first seems extremely unlikely. The second and third require his mom to use words in a way he wouldn't reasonably be expected to understand at the time.

Finally, he comes to think that his mom was purposely condescending to him in relating that story. Kissing was a form of intimacy that he was already able to understand and appreciate, and so his mom used that instead of the more accurate description which he would have found baffling and probably a bit scary and gross. While his mom's version wasn't technically as accurate, it better conveyed the spirit of the sexual act. Also, he came to see that his mom was more intent on telling him about how marital love should work than how sex does work. That's why she had said it was between a mom and dad who loved each other.

At the beginning of his questioning, Freddy had wondered why his mom would tell him something that wasn't true. Now, he realized that his mom's story had been true in another way, and the story was even more important than he'd thought. He didn't think his mom was evil for telling him this story, and he didn't discard the other things she'd taught him because of this. However, he did come to a greater appreciation of the different ways his mom had communicated with him in order to guide him to adulthood.

grmorton

January 8th 2005, 11:25 PM

This post is responding to a post about a week old. I was away for a week and ended up not having as much Internet access as I expected.
Why creation specifically? Why not other details about reality? Any evidence of things only God could know could not be confirmed by anyone aside from God. Any evidence that could be confirmed or verified could be from any beings with more knowledge than us and does not necessarily point to God. I don't see how a historical record of creation would significantly diminish the necessity of faith.

Well, I am open to being convinced. If you can point me to a verse where the Bible states Newton's laws of motion, or the gravitational tensor, I would clearly accept that. The problem is, the only real thing of substance about nature of which the Bible speaks is the flood and creation.

Given your approach and your acknowledgement of poetic elements in Genesis 1, I'm perplexed at your insistence that it still be a historical account. In any case, I think the framework view keeps the account more historical than the days of proclamation view.

Well, I don't think the book of Mormon teaches real history either. Tell me why it doesn't contain deep theological insights? Describe in detail the approach you would take to distinguish between the historically false account in Genesis and the historically false account in the Book of Mormon. When you do that, you will have satisfied my objection to making Genesis historically false.

The DoP holds onto historical days but changes the creating to planning. The framework view holds onto the creating but treats the days as a literary framework.

Ok, tell me why the literary framework of the Book of Mormon isn't relating truth to us. My problem with your approach (and my son is a Framework advocate) is that it really is not very useful to answering the questions I have and not very useful at making some sort of connection between reality and theology. If the literary framework conveys absolute nonsense about nature, shouldn't we reject the document relating such nonsense? It is why I reject the Book of Mormon. There is no history in it.

If Genesis 1 is just God's blueprints with parenthetical remarks stating that the plan was eventually realized, the whole account seems rather pointless. It loses much of its literary beauty, and it also becomes untestable and unfalsifiable, since how things are planned need not match how they are built.

1. who cares about literary beauty. I don't think the sky is blue because of its literary beauty.
2. Are you seriously trying to say that the literary framework view is testable and falsifiable? If your view is equally untestable, why are you saying this about the days of proclamation? There is an old saying you should learn--people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

It is strange that you would hold to such a view while still believing that God must provide historical details of creation in order to prove that he is God.

What I really want is an interpretation of the Bible which allows it to be historically true. That is a bit different.

Accepting the talking snake as a miracle is troubling for the same reason accepting shrinking animals on the ark as a miracle is troubling: it's a miracle forced onto the text by a certain interpretation rather than one stated in the text as miraculous. According to the Bible, why did the serpent talk? "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made" (Genesis 3:1a). Contrast this with Balaam's donkey: "And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey" (Numbers 22:28). This difference is why I accept the speech of this donkey as miraculous while thinking the talking snake in Genesis is a sign the story is non-historical. This has nothing to do with the size of the miracle, and that's why this approach doesn't lead to discounting the miracle of Jesus' resurrection.
Who here claimed it was false? I think the problem is that you've set a very exacting standard for how creation must be presented in the Bible, but you're unwilling to apply that standard to the rest of the Bible. Does Genesis 30 give a false genetics account and then claim it is true? By this passage, can we conclude that God doesn't know anything about genetics and instead tells us fables? Basically, how do you interpret the Bible outside of Genesis 1-11?

First off, Jesus said that if he wanted, he could make the stones cry out. Miracles are what they are--things which don't fit into the normal state of affairs. They are not testable. And actually neither is the actual instant of the Big Bang testable--we don't have the energy to test it. Your view isn't testable, and my view isn't testable. What I am doing is developing an interpretation which gives the YECs what they want--an ability for the Bible to be historically true, but give them also what they need--an acceptance of observational data.

As to snakes and sheep. I believe that the talking snake was a miracle. As to Genesis 30, it says what happened, it doesn't say anything really about genetics. I believe it was a miracle nothing more. Just because Jacob believed what he did about genetics doesn't make it so. I don't think the Bible ever says that. It does indicate that Jacob believed that but you can't use that to say that God believes that about genetics.

Don't you think it is entirely ridiculous for Naaman to dip himself in a dirty river 7 times to get healed from leprosy? I mean, does this mean that the Bible teaches that when we get sick we should go dip ourselves in dirty rivers? I would suggest that river in Cleveland which burned several years ago--oh darn, they cleaned it up. How about the Ganges? Oh, I suspect that this is another of those literary thingies you think save the Bible from being false. Literary thingies don't prevent the Bible from being false, they just acknowledge that it is false and then proclaim that it isn't after all because it's a POEM, an ODE, or a LIMERICK. And then we can all sleep at night regardless of the ridiculous things that limerick says. How ridiculous that approach is.

Who claimed it was false? You mean you are not claiming it was false? That means you really believe that the trees appeared on earth before the sun and stars? REALLLLLLY? You believe that? Wow, I didn't think any TE thought that, but since you say you don't believe the account is false, then you surely must believe this. I will take you at your word. But if you believe it is true, why do you need this literary framework thingie? Please explain this, I am puzzled.

Revelation is about nature and supernature (among other things). Does the use of beasts and trumpets prove that God doesn't know anything about the world and the heavenlies? Your interpretational approach would seem to make much of the Bible into nonsense because it doesn't convey truth in the form you desire, and that's why I'm so curious as to how you interpret other passages.
Is a story about the incarnation either true, when compared to reality, or false? Which account of the birth of Jesus is correct, the one in Luke 2 and Matthew 1 or the one in Revelation 12:1-5? Is the Revelation one just a fable because it contains non-historical events, or is it possible that it's conveying truth in another way? I think Genesis 2-3 has more in common with Revelation 12 than with Luke 2. To rework your analogy, it may be possible that creation included both bananas and cats, but the cats are the focus of the biblical account while you're searching for details about the bananas.

I think you are kind of going over the top with many of these things. The birth story, both are true and they can be harmonized. I don't believe that Rev 12 is actually referring to the birth of Christ 2000 years ago and Revelations is so different from every other book, I don't feel the need to look for historicity in it. But when it is claimed that God created the heavens and the earth, that is a propositional statement. It is not like statements in Revelation or other nonsense you are thrusting up. Either that statement is true or it is false. There is no middle ground. It is either historical or it is nonhistorical. Thus, Genesis 1 makes a different case than many of the things you try to twist.

I did elucidate. It's the last three paragraphs of post #17. In summary, the problem is in your assumption that God being unwilling but able to communicate the historical details of creation means he is evil. It may just mean he's given us a brain to discover some things for ourselves and doesn't ruin that by spoiling us with answers to many questions we can learn to answer on our own.

He is unwilling to communicate truth about creation but his main claim to fame is that he created the universe. There really is no other reason to worship him, you know. One YEC friend, Harold Slusher, commented to me years ago, If God can't be creator, how can he be savior? There are lots of myths about risen saviors--try Osiris the resurrected God of Egypt. If Jesus claims resurrection by a god who isn't the creator, then maybe it is just a myth? God as creator is very very important.

By making Genesis 1 a wonderful literary work, you remove God from creation. You make every statement false, save one--God created the heavens and the earth. That is as ad hoc as anything I can think of that a YEC has done. You chose the one statement you want to be historically true, but then argue that every statement made which would back that up is false. Why would you believe such a false account indicates an actual creator? Would you do this in science? Every false theory has one true statement, simply because it is a false theory? I don't think I want to be as logically twisted as you seem to be.

I see. How do you explain this passage? If I knew that, it may shed some more light on how you read the early part of Genesis. Right now, it appears that you're either using a different standard for the rest of the Bible or just ignoring any passages that don't jibe with your view.
What God can do and what God chooses to do are not the same. I don't believe it is essential for God to reveal the historical and scientific details of creation. That doesn't mean I have no idea about right and wrong.

Hey, Mercury, the account doesn't say God believed that is how genetics worked. It does imply that Jacob THOUGHT that was how it worked. You haven't thought very deeply about these issues.

The portion of the Midrash Bereshith you quoted does not limit the pre-planning stage to Genesis 1. Unless you're also willing to take the rest of Genesis, Exodus, and all of the Torah as pre-planning instead of historical, this quote doesn't support your view.

I didn't say it limited it. They believed God planned everything--the entire set of events. The entire Torah was written before the world including Jacob and his flaky beliefs about genetics, Abram denying that Sarai was his wife etc etc. They believed God knew it and wrote it. How, pray tell, is that different from the Christian belief that God is omniscient and prescient? Or do you think that is a literary form also? Beautiful or ugly, but not really true?

You know, the psalms says that he knew us from our womb. I suppose that really isn't true either. Just another of those literary form thingies. And if it isn't true that God is prescient, how on earth could God have made any prophecies about Christ without a wee bit of prescience? Or do you think he didn't make any predictions foretelling the future? If so, what kind of god do you worship?

grmorton

January 8th 2005, 11:29 PM

Here's an answer in story form. I realize you may not appreciate this form of response, so feel free to ignore it. The points in it have been made more directly in other posts.

Fredrick asks his mom where babies come from. She gulps deeply as she was not expecting her young child to ask this question for a few years yet, and then explains that when a mommy and a daddy really love each other, they kiss each other a lot and sometimes this makes a baby start to grow in the mommy's tummy.

When Freddy's older, he reflects back on this explanation and realizes how false it was. Kissing has no direct link to conception. But that's not the only factual error: it's also not true that making a baby requires a married couple, or even that the couple needs to love each other. Why did his mom tell him this blatantly false story?

Fred can think of a few reasons. Maybe everything he's learned about sex is actually a clever deception and his mom's story really is literally true. Or, maybe his mom meant something more by "kiss" than its ordinary meaning; after all, the word can also mean an expression of affection through physical contact regardless of which body parts are involved. Or, maybe his mom was just talking about how a couple tends to kiss a lot when they're planning to have a baby, and the statement about a baby starting to grow is just the end result of that plan. But, none of these reasons satisfy Fred. The first seems extremely unlikely. The second and third require his mom to use words in a way he wouldn't reasonably be expected to understand at the time.

Finally, he comes to think that his mom was purposely condescending to him in relating that story. Kissing was a form of intimacy that he was already able to understand and appreciate, and so his mom used that instead of the more accurate description which he would have found baffling and probably a bit scary and gross. While his mom's version wasn't technically as accurate, it better conveyed the spirit of the sexual act. Also, he came to see that his mom was more intent on telling him about how marital love should work than how sex does work. That's why she had said it was between a mom and dad who loved each other.

At the beginning of his questioning, Freddy had wondered why his mom would tell him something that wasn't true. Now, he realized that his mom's story had been true in another way, and the story was even more important than he'd thought. He didn't think his mom was evil for telling him this story, and he didn't discard the other things she'd taught him because of this. However, he did come to a greater appreciation of the different ways his mom had communicated with him in order to guide him to adulthood.

Nice story. Totally irrelevant because Genesis 1 is conveying false information, not just allegorical information. The trees did not appear before the sun, they did not appear before the fish. That is false. Why do you think this poem will save that falsehood?

kofh2u

January 9th 2005, 12:53 AM

Nice story. Totally irrelevant because Genesis 1 is conveying false information, not just allegorical information. The trees did not appear before the sun, they did not appear before the fish. That is false. Why do you think this poem will save that falsehood?

I think your proclamation idea is one way to circumvent such criticism.

However, it is a matter of one's view point, in regard to how you take this writing. I like the general thrust of the "story teller" idea, too.

The point is, that Genesis is communicating an idea that is an acceptable general overview of a world perspective. The idea of TE is not to eliminate happy and content YEC. We want to able to include scientist.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).

Basically, the early seeds of the first living cells of protoplasm are still with us today. I mean that all life today is merely "fattened up" protoplasm that has never been dead, never, from the very beginning.

Cells divide and divide. Those that die are immaterial to the continuity of the cells that continue to live. All that live are essentially protoplasm from the mother cell, just being fattened up to split again.

All life is like that science fiction story, The Blob. Cut it, hack it, split it, each piece takes on a life of its own, and through mitosis, grows and grows.

The two kingdoms of life, animal and plant, were essentially created with the first plant cell and the first animal cell. Yes, the seven separate Eras are important geologically significant moments in this story of evolving life. The analogy in Genesis is more than cncidental. But the focus on the specific details of this Genesis tale from a close analysis with a biology textbook may miss the point.

Let me just say that it is no coincidence that there were seven (7) days in this tale, nor that we have concluded after much experimentation and contemplation, that geologically, there seems to us, that seven (7) geological Eras are separated from one another by ideas that seem plausible to the human mind.

In regard to F = ma, and the other two laws you mentioned, it might surprise you that our mathematical calculations in these Newtonian Laws of Motion are dependent upon understanding numbers which come in Seven Sets and types, N,W,I,R,Ir,Q, and C.

There is much that doen't met the eye of the beholder direct on in this Book of Genesis, but the least of it concerns the hair splitting examination of how trees evolve from the elementary third day start.

As Jesus said, how could he tell his apostlesof the deeper things when they are so hung up on incidentals.

Mercury

January 9th 2005, 02:11 AM

Well, I am open to being convinced. If you can point me to a verse where the Bible states Newton's laws of motion, or the gravitational tensor, I would clearly accept that. The problem is, the only real thing of substance about nature of which the Bible speaks is the flood and creation.What convinced me had more to do with reading about how God created humanity to have relationship with him, how we rebelled (each one of us), and how only God could restore this broken relationship. It's not very testable, but I do know that I sin and the Bible seemed to have a better explanation for that fact than any other philosophies I tested. For me, confirmations of science were never much more than novelties. I think it's neat that Genesis 1's account of God speaking light into existence first matches up quite well with the big bang theory, and I'm impressed with how Jewish dietary and cleanliness laws jibe with what is now understood about disease, but these things are not the basis of my faith.
Describe in detail the approach you would take to distinguish between the historically false account in Genesis and the historically false account in the Book of Mormon.That's probably a better question for someone with more familiarity with the Book of Mormon.
My problem with your approach (and my son is a Framework advocate) is that it really is not very useful to answering the questions I have and not very useful at making some sort of connection between reality and theology.Yes, I wholeheartedly accept that it isn't very useful for answering your questions. I think there's more important questions about creation that it does shed light on.
1. who cares about literary beauty. I don't think the sky is blue because of its literary beauty.You accept that Genesis 1 contains poetic elements. So, it would appear that its author cared about literary beauty.
2. Are you seriously trying to say that the literary framework view is testable and falsifiable? If your view is equally untestable, why are you saying this about the days of proclamation? There is an old saying you should learn--people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.My view is equally untestable when it comes to chronological and historical details. (Both our views are somewhat testable when it comes to Genesis 1:1 which we both read as more historical and straight-forward than the seven-day account that follows.) My point was that since you argue that God must convey historical details of creation in his inspired book in order to be God, it is strange that you hold to a view that is so untestable. Since I don't accept that God must do that, I don't have that problem in holding to the framework view.
Miracles are what they are--things which don't fit into the normal state of affairs. They are not testable.Agreed.
What I am doing is developing an interpretation which gives the YECs what they want--an ability for the Bible to be historically true, but give them also what they need--an acceptance of observational data.That may make your view a great stepping stone for YECs, but I think it's an unsatisfying final destination. I don't believe it's one that can be consistently followed throughout the rest of Scripture. It also seems very awkward based on what Hebrews 4 says about creation.
I believe that the talking snake was a miracle.That's fine. I'm glad you acknowledge that it's a belief rather than saying that the Bible says so.
As to Genesis 30, it says what happened, it doesn't say anything really about genetics. I believe it was a miracle nothing more. Just because Jacob believed what he did about genetics doesn't make it so. I don't think the Bible ever says that. It does indicate that Jacob believed that but you can't use that to say that God believes that about genetics.The text doesn't say what Jacob believed, only what Jacob did. Genesis 30:43 seems to indicate there's a causal relationship between Jacob's actions and his prosperity. This link is made by the author, not Jacob. If you didn't know modern genetics, what grounds would you have for claiming there was a miracle here? Jacob's cunning seems to be the primary reason for his prosperity, and this is due to the way the account is written, not any thoughts or speeches by Jacob.

There's another way of responding to what you wrote here. "Your approach allows god to say or communicate any idiotic thing (Gen 30)and then be home free by explaining it away for him. All the good stuff God does, all he bad stuff men do. Heads-God-win; tails-we-lose." How does your approach escape your own criticism? The good stuff (the unmentioned miracle) God does, and the bad stuff (the belief that different coloured sticks could influence breeding) Jacob does. Heads, God wins; tails, humans lose.
Don't you think it is entirely ridiculous for Naaman to dip himself in a dirty river 7 times to get healed from leprosy? I mean, does this mean that the Bible teaches that when we get sick we should go dip ourselves in dirty rivers?Naaman thought it was ridiculous. And for good reason -- how could such a silly thing cure his leprosy? The answer is revealed: "Then Naaman and all his attendants went back to the man of God. He stood before him and said, 'Now I know that there is no river in all the world with the cleansing powers of the Jordan.' " Oh wait -- it doesn't say that! Naaman seems to have thought that his cure was due to God and not the river. This is stated in 2 Kings 5:15 and foreshadowed in verses 3, 7 and 8. Now if only you could find verses like that about Jacob's flocks or the talking serpent in Eden we'd have good reason to treat those as miracles too.
Oh, I suspect that this is another of those literary thingies you think save the Bible from being false. Literary thingies don't prevent the Bible from being false, they just acknowledge that it is false and then proclaim that it isn't after all because it's a POEM, an ODE, or a LIMERICK.No, as shown above, I take the account of Naaman as historical and accept what is stated as a miracle as being a miracle. 2 Kings 5 reads quite different from Genesis 1 and has none of the indications of being non-historical as far as I can see. It doesn't reveal events for which there were no human witnesses; it doesn't personify the river or other inanimate objects; its chronology is not designed to institute an ordinance; it doesn't have a repeated refrain throughout; parts of its timeline are not stretched out elsewhere in the Bible; etc.
Who claimed it was false? You mean you are not claiming it was false? That means you really believe that the trees appeared on earth before the sun and stars? REALLLLLLY? You believe that?No, of course not. I don't believe trees clap their hands either but that doesn't mean I think Isaiah 55 is false. I think the order of Genesis 1 is false historically, but Genesis 1 remains true because I don't think its order is intended to be historical. I think either Matthew 4 or Luke 4 (or both) contain a non-historical order of Jesus' temptations, but I still believe both of those accounts are true too. You know that our difference in Genesis is in what type of literature we think the text is and not whether we believe it's true.
But if you believe it is true, why do you need this literary framework thingie? Please explain this, I am puzzled.Because this "thingie" seems to be suggested by the text. Because the order makes more sense poetically (three days of creating realms, three matching days of creating inhabitants for these realms) than it does historically. Because it explains how the seventh day can be tied to both the Sabbath ordinance and God's rest that we can still enter.
The birth story, both are true and they can be harmonized. I don't believe that Rev 12 is actually referring to the birth of Christ 2000 years ago and Revelations is so different from every other book, I don't feel the need to look for historicity in it.I didn't point out any differences in the gospel accounts of the birth story. If you don't believe Revelation 12 is referring to the birth of Christ, just who do you think Revelation 12:5 refers to, if not the Messiah? Also, you say that you see Revelation as different from the rest of Scripture. I see Genesis 1 as unique in Scripture, and Genesis 2-11 as quite different from Kings or Acts. However, I do not use that as an excuse to ignore these portions of Scripture.
But when it is claimed that God created the heavens and the earth, that is a propositional statement. It is not like statements in Revelation or other nonsense you are thrusting up. Either that statement is true or it is false. There is no middle ground. It is either historical or it is nonhistorical.I asked you about this in my very first post in this thread. Why do you believe that I (and TEs in general) doubt that propositional statement? Let me state it emphatically: I believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
If Jesus claims resurrection by a god who isn't the creator, then maybe it is just a myth? God as creator is very very important.Of course it is. Until you understand that I accept God as Creator, this is going to be a futile discussion.
You make every statement false, save one--God created the heavens and the earth. That is as ad hoc as anything I can think of that a YEC has done. You chose the one statement you want to be historically true, but then argue that every statement made which would back that up is false.Not at all. Genesis 1 also claims God made the stars. I believe it. It claims God made plants, animals, birds, fish. I believe it. It claims God made humans. I believe it. But, I don't think the account is God's direct listing of his creative action. The human author told about God's creation in his own way, but God's creation is more than that. I also believe God made angels and bacteria and seaweed, even though those things aren't mentioned. When it comes to things like the firmament, I think that here too the author was speaking from his own perspective, and even though I don't believe in a firmament, I still get the point the author is driving home: God made everything! God's creative act is not limited to what Genesis 1 itemizes.

I realize that you probably think inspiration precludes such things, but I don't. And that is why I have no trouble with Genesis 1 or Genesis 30, and why I see your approach to Genesis 30 as inconsistent with your approach to Genesis 1-3.
Why would you believe such a false account indicates an actual creator? Would you do this in science?No, I would not approach a scientific paper the same way I approach Genesis 1. I thought we at least agreed that Genesis 1 wasn't a science text, and given that, I have no idea why you'd expect me to treat a science text the same way.
Hey, Mercury, the account doesn't say God believed that is how genetics worked. It does imply that Jacob THOUGHT that was how it worked. You haven't thought very deeply about these issues.No, Genesis 30 doesn't let us get into Jacob's head. As I explained above, we only know what he did, not what he thought, and the author seems to think his actions were at least partially responsible for his prosperity. Similarly, Genesis 1 doesn't say God believes this is the order of creation. I don't even think it implies that the author thought that was how it worked, although that may be the case in later chapters. I won't mimic your last sentence because my guess is that, like me, you've thought long and hard about these issues.
I didn't say it limited it. They believed God planned everything--the entire set of events. The entire Torah was written before the world including Jacob and his flaky beliefs about genetics, Abram denying that Sarai was his wife etc etc. They believed God knew it and wrote it. How, pray tell, is that different from the Christian belief that God is omniscient and prescient? Or do you think that is a literary form also? Beautiful or ugly, but not really true?

You know, the psalms says that he knew us from our womb. I suppose that really isn't true either. Just another of those literary form thingies. And if it isn't true that God is prescient, how on earth could God have made any prophecies about Christ without a wee bit of prescience? Or do you think he didn't make any predictions foretelling the future? If so, what kind of god do you worship?I have no idea where this came from. I pointed out that your quote from the Midrash Bereshith doesn't help your view of Genesis 1 being a description of pre-planning in a way the rest of the Torah isn't.
Nice story. Totally irrelevant because Genesis 1 is conveying false information, not just allegorical information.Kissing leading to babies is false information if taken literally.
Why do you think this poem will save that falsehood?Which poem?

AllDay

January 9th 2005, 06:48 AM

Kissing leading to babies is false information if taken literally.
Which poem?
Just a quick note to let you know that I am enjoying and interested in your comments.

As a high school science teacher I wanted to comment that everyone knows kissing doesn't lead to babies ... Homecoming and Prom do. :wink:

Very interesting reading about the different views of Bible interpretation.

Tickle Me Goody

January 9th 2005, 07:49 AM

Very interesting reading about the different views of Bible interpretation.
So many interpretations ===> It makes you wonder if the problem is that the Bible, while inspired, may not be as "inerrant" as many claim. The Bible never declared that of itself.

grmorton

January 9th 2005, 09:11 AM

I think your proclamation idea is one way to circumvent such criticism.

However, it is a matter of one's view point, in regard to how you take this writing. I like the general thrust of the "story teller" idea, too.

This might surprise you, but I have no problem with the account being forged by some ancient Bard.The account is a poem. But it has a serious theological statement--God created the heavens and the earth. There is one and only one way to know if that is actually true and that is, if the account can fit in with both present and future scientific knowledge. It is the mark of truth on the creation account.

I worry about the cafeteria style theology in which we accept Genesis 1:1 but allegorize the rest, accept that God created mankind, but then allegorize the snake, accept that mankind is descended from a single pair but reject Babel etc. This cafeteria style theology is ad hocism applied to religious concepts.

The point is, that Genesis is communicating an idea that is an acceptable general overview of a world perspective. The idea of TE is not to eliminate happy and content YEC. We want to able to include scientist.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).

There are two points that I can see. Yes we want to include the scientist and communicate the truths of the gospel to them. We can't do this with the YEC paradigm. It chases them off. Indeed, if this board knew how many young christians in science had contacted me over the years because they were seriously contemplating rejecting the faith it would amaze them. The YEC and normal TE offers them nothing because of the same issue which has been raised here, it isn't true.

One of my best bosses was an atheist. He was also a geologist. I went to him and outlined the view that Genesis 1 was a poem, it wasn't meant to be taken literal. Would that interpretation allow him to be a christian again (his father was a minister). He laughed at me and said, "But it still wouldn't be truuuuuueeeee!"

I have to agree with him. The Jabberwocky isn't meant to be taken as true. This one probably is http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/rich/online_poems.htm
As I have often said, one could construct a simple but true account of creation, consistent with evolution yet simple enough for the most technologically primitive person to understand---'out of the mud, life came'. One doesn't need a text book of science to convey truth (something often erroneously claimed by TE's) nor does one need a collection of untruths in order to convey a truth.

Basically, the early seeds of the first living cells of protoplasm are still with us today. I mean that all life today is merely "fattened up" protoplasm that has never been dead, never, from the very beginning.

Cells divide and divide. Those that die are immaterial to the continuity of the cells that continue to live. All that live are essentially protoplasm from the mother cell, just being fattened up to split again.

All life is like that science fiction story, The Blob. Cut it, hack it, split it, each piece takes on a life of its own, and through mitosis, grows and grows.

The two kingdoms of life, animal and plant, were essentially created with the first plant cell and the first animal cell. Yes, the seven separate Eras are important geologically significant moments in this story of evolving life. The analogy in Genesis is more than cncidental. But the focus on the specific details of this Genesis tale from a close analysis with a biology textbook may miss the point.

Let me just say that it is no coincidence that there were seven (7) days in this tale, nor that we have concluded after much experimentation and contemplation, that geologically, there seems to us, that seven (7) geological Eras are separated from one another by ideas that seem plausible to the human mind.

I only count 6 eras, Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic,Algongkian, Archaean, Hadean. What am I missing.

kofh2u

January 9th 2005, 10:23 AM

I only count 6 eras, Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic,Algongkian, Archaean, Hadean. What am I missing.

Woooopppie...

Gm, I have been waiting a long time for someone to ask your question.

First, I wonder, with all the science people posting here, how come no one has demonstrated enough analytical expertise to ask this.

Second, as a Physicist, you understand how important math is as the language of our science, but so many other fields within our discipline demand calculation as in our science. So, yes, we must be counting in our thinking if we are really doing that, thinking.

Three, until you asked, I wondered if anyone really was serious enough about what I posted to even hive it that old "brainstorming" opportunity for consideration.

Four, before I answer you, I am e-mailing you that hypothesis for the five stone Urim & Thummim we talked about.

Mercury

January 9th 2005, 01:06 PM

As I have often said, one could construct a simple but true account of creation, consistent with evolution yet simple enough for the most technologically primitive person to understand---'out of the mud, life came'. One doesn't need a text book of science to convey truth (something often erroneously claimed by TE's) nor does one need a collection of untruths in order to convey a truth.I don't dispute that. However, that's not the only way God could communicate creation, and apparently it's not the way he chose. God could also have given us a simple but true account of his character with absolutely no anthropomorphisms or symbolism. Had he done so, probably fewer people would think of God (aside from God incarnate, Jesus) really having breath or arms. But again, he didn't choose to do that, perhaps because it was more important to get across that God is a personal being with a will and not just a diffused force. The mom in my story a few posts up could have constructed a simple but true account of conception, consistent with biology yet plain enough for even her young son to understand. But instead, she chose a version with factual inaccuracies. She deemed it more important to get across that making a baby was something intimate and special than to accurately convey all the physical details.

Of course, what these examples have in common is that the authority of the one condescending is not in question. God and the mom I mentioned don't prove themselves through what they convey -- in fact, understanding what they convey requires their listener to first accept that they are truly someone worth listening to. I don't believe the creation accounts prove that God is who he claims to be and I don't look to them to do that. Since you feel differently, I can understand why you don't like my view on this.

Anyway, I've explained many issues around the periphery but I haven't yet given my own view of why the order in Genesis 1 is the way it is. First, I think God's purpose in Genesis 1 is to establish that he is the only Creator and that he is involved with his creation. He revealed this without giving us the answers to questions we have the God-given ability to answer on our own (even if the answers aren't discovered in our lifetime). Genesis 1 doesn't tell us the shape of the world, and it uses terminology that would be very familiar to those who believed in a flat earth surrounded by water covered by the canopy of the heavens. The account is given from an earth-based perspective, so there is no hint that the earth orbits the sun or is dwarfed in size by the sun. While these may seem to be gross oversights for those who see the text as scientific in nature, it makes sense if you believe that the text is more interested in telling us about God and his relationship to humanity than in spilling all the secrets of how the universe works.

Further, God revealed the indescribable wonders of creation in a way that would make sense to the earliest humans as well as us. Even though I think we know more about the universe now than people did in Moses' day, there are still huge mysteries. Genesis 1 doesn't require an understanding of the immensity of stars or the amazing complexity of plant life. Instead, it tells of a creative act beyond our imagination by using terms we (and earlier humans) can understand.

Probably the most creative act a person can do is to make a story. Whether told orally, acted out on a stage or produced in a movie, a story allows a person to create a universe of their own, populated with the vistas and characters of their choosing. It is a form of creation that is known to virtually all cultures in all times, even though the methods of storytelling change. I think Genesis 1 describes how God created the universe using a structure familiar to any playwright or storyteller. It describes the three sets, or realms, and the three groups of characters that together make up this creation.

The first three days describe the three realms. The first realm (1:3-5) is space (or, the heavens). It is the upper reaches of the sky, higher than the birds. Aside from the sun, moon and stars, all this realm consists of (from an earthly perspective) is a gradual progression between light and dark, day and night.

The second realm (1:6-8) is sea and sky. Picture yourself on a tiny island just big enough to stand on. You're surrounded by the sea in every direction, and above you are only the clouds of the sky.

The third and final realm (1:9-13) is land. Note that this realm is created fully-furnished with all kinds of plants and trees. It, like the other realms, is complete except for the characters who will inhabit it.

The second set of three days describe the three groups of characters who inhabit each realm. First, the characters for space are added (1:14-19). Note that the sun is described as governing the day while the moon governs the night: the personification is natural since these are characters and not mere set dressing like the plants.

Second, the characters are added to the sea and sky (1:20-23). A scientist may wonder why whales and bats aren't created with the other mammals, but the point isn't to scientifically classify the animals. It also isn't classifying them according to worth (if that were the purpose, surely humans would have a day for themselves!). Instead, birds and fish (and bats and whales) are all characters that inhabit the second set, so they are all created on the fifth day.

Finally, the characters that live on land are created (1:24-31). This includes livestock, bugs, wild animals, and humans.

One thing I like about this interpretation is that everything fits on the right day. In fact, if you moved any one thing to a different day, it wouldn't make as much sense. This view is similar to how this creation account is sometimes divided into three days of forming that correspond with three days of filling, but unlike that view, the creation of plant life on day three isn't a problem. Unlike a literal historical reading, the creation of light first, then plants, then the sun makes perfect sense, and the personification of the sun and moon also makes sense. It also explains why animals span two days while humans are added at the end of day six instead of getting a day of their own.

Overall, Genesis 1 is an account of God's creation explained in terms humans throughout the ages can understand and relate to: a grand play being fashioned with three realms (or sets) corresponding to three groups of characters. It is not intended to explain the mysteries of the universe, but rather to point to the One who created those mysteries.

grmorton

January 9th 2005, 02:07 PM

What convinced me had more to do with reading about how God created humanity to have relationship with him, how we rebelled (each one of us), and how only God could restore this broken relationship. It's not very testable, but I do know that I sin and the Bible seemed to have a better explanation for that fact than any other philosophies I tested. For me, confirmations of science were never much more than novelties. I think it's neat that Genesis 1's account of God speaking light into existence first matches up quite well with the big bang theory, and I'm impressed with how Jewish dietary and cleanliness laws jibe with what is now understood about disease, but these things are not the basis of my faith.

Well the issue isn't what convinced you. The issue is whether or not there is any objective truth in Genesis 1--at least that is my issue. If you want to discuss what convinced you more, then I am unqualified to discuss it.

That's probably a better question for someone with more familiarity with the Book of Mormon.

I am not going to let you off the hook that easily. Take any of the hundreds of creation accounts which are accepted by the various religions around the world. How do you tell which is true? You are simply avoiding the tough question by disclaiming knowledge of a specific book. Tell me how you tell the BIBLE is THE book worthy of spending your life with? If it tells you false things, how or more importantly why do you think it is true?

Yes, I wholeheartedly accept that it isn't very useful for answering your questions. I think there's more important questions about creation that it does shed light on.

You might be the very first TE who has ever publically acknowledge actually understanding my complaint and the weak spot here. But I would ask, why would you think it has anything of value to shed on creation if it can't tell us anything historically TRUE about creation? I don't go to Bill Clinton if I want any kind of truth about politics of the 1990s. Why would you go to a document for enlightenment which you admit doesn't present historical truth?

You accept that Genesis 1 contains poetic elements. So, it would appear that its author cared about literary beauty.

No, he cared about memory. Poems are often easier to remember than prose. Many primitive societies have this kind of poetry

My view is equally untestable when it comes to chronological and historical details. (Both our views are somewhat testable when it comes to Genesis 1:1 which we both read as more historical and straight-forward than the seven-day account that follows.) My point was that since you argue that God must convey historical details of creation in his inspired book in order to be God, it is strange that you hold to a view that is so untestable. Since I don't accept that God must do that, I don't have that problem in holding to the framework view.

The interpretation must be able to accommodate modern science in a way that is more than making it speak only of warm and fuzzy things and ethical standards.

You agreed that miracles are things which don't fit into the normal ordinary state of affairs. So why do you remove so many miracles from the Scripture? I mean, why is a talking snake so impossible a miracle?

That may make your view a great stepping stone for YECs, but I think it's an unsatisfying final destination. I don't believe it's one that can be consistently followed throughout the rest of Scripture. It also seems very awkward based on what Hebrews 4 says about creation.

Then we must view each other's views as a lousy final destination. The reason atheism is growing is that science actually tells us something real about nature and religion rightly or wrongly, is viewed as telling us only fables about reality. People in general chose reality to fantasy. Thus, when you make Scripture have no touchstone with reality wrt creation, then people will chose reality--the scientific view of life over the theological view of life.

As to Hebrews 4, I would ask that you spell out what your objection is rather than merely throwing references to chapters around. I read it and don't see anything that is problematical from my axiomatic position. Maybe there is something that conflicts with your axiomatic position, but that would be your issue and not mine.

That's fine. I'm glad you acknowledge that it's a belief rather than saying that the Bible says so.

What has always amazed me about the TE's is something that makes their views (the ones I have run across) unacceptable to me is that they seem to take all the miraculous acts as being allegorical, misplaced beliefs or as simply wrong. But then they hold that the Bible is true in a deeply theological sense. To me that is utter illogicalness boild down to its purest essense.

The text doesn't say what Jacob believed, only what Jacob did. Genesis 30:43 seems to indicate there's a causal relationship between Jacob's actions and his prosperity. This link is made by the author, not Jacob. If you didn't know modern genetics, what grounds would you have for claiming there was a miracle here? Jacob's cunning seems to be the primary reason for his prosperity, and this is due to the way the account is written, not any thoughts or speeches by Jacob.

What gets me here is that you are so quick to ascribe Jacob's actions and beliefs of prenatal influence to those of God. Point me to a verse where God says that genetics works with prenatal influence. Today at church I stopped by the library and looked through several commentaries on Gen 30. Most didn't even mention the controversy this passage generates. The ones that did, Leopold, and a book by H. Morris, stupidly tried to defend this as God's idea of genetics. I don't see these beliefs as being endorsed by God any more than I see Rebekah's plan of deception being endorsed by God

Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee. 9Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats. And I will make them savory food for thy father, such as he loveth. 10And thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, so that he may bless thee before his death. 11And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man. 12My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver. And I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing. 13And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son. Only obey my voice, and go fetch me them. 14And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother. And his mother made savory food, such as his father loved. 15And Rebekah took the goodly garments of Esau her elder son, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son. 16And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck. 17And she gave the savory food and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob. Gen 27:8-17 ASV
Surely you are not going to claim that this verse demonstrates that God approves of lying, cheating, stealing and deception? If not, why do you think that Jacob's wacky ideas are endorsed by God? God promised Jacob an increase in wealth, God gave him that increase, but it had nothing to do with stripped branches. The right of first blessing was Jacob's because Jacob bought Esau's place with porridge, but they used deception to get it. Same kind of thing.

There's another way of responding to what you wrote here. "Your approach allows god to say or communicate any idiotic thing (Gen 30)and then be home free by explaining it away for him. All the good stuff God does, all he bad stuff men do. Heads-God-win; tails-we-lose." How does your approach escape your own criticism? The good stuff (the unmentioned miracle) God does, and the bad stuff (the belief that different coloured sticks could influence breeding) Jacob does. Heads, God wins; tails, humans lose.

The Bible communcates what happened in its more historical passages. It isn't necessarily giving divine blessing on some of those ideas. To me the place where God loses is if HE says something that is totally incompatible with knowledge. In the Genesis 30 passage which you keep pounding uselessly on, it doesn't say that God told Jacob to strip the branches. Where is that, Mercury? Show it to me.

Naaman thought it was ridiculous. And for good reason -- how could such a silly thing cure his leprosy? The answer is revealed: "Then Naaman and all his attendants went back to the man of God. He stood before him and said, 'Now I know that there is no river in all the world with the cleansing powers of the Jordan.' " Oh wait -- it doesn't say that! Naaman seems to have thought that his cure was due to God and not the river. This is stated in 2 Kings 5:15 and foreshadowed in verses 3, 7 and 8. Now if only you could find verses like that about Jacob's flocks or the talking serpent in Eden we'd have good reason to treat those as miracles too.
No, as shown above, I take the account of Naaman as historical and accept what is stated as a miracle as being a miracle. 2 Kings 5 reads quite different from Genesis 1 and has none of the indications of being non-historical as far as I can see. It doesn't reveal events for which there were no human witnesses; it doesn't personify the river or other inanimate objects; its chronology is not designed to institute an ordinance; it doesn't have a repeated refrain throughout; parts of its timeline are not stretched out elsewhere in the Bible; etc.

Oh, Adam and Eve are not human witnesses of the snake speaking? Gee, I really thought they were human. The problem isn't that there aren't human witnesses, the problem is that you don't want to accept that as a miracle, pure and simple. You would do better just to say so. And by the standard you set above, you are inconsistently rejecting Genesis 1 because it has events for which there are no human witnesses, rejecting Genesis 30 in spite of there being witnesses, and accepting Naaman's story because there are witnesses. You are highly inconsistent here.

As to Naaman, he didn't get his healing until he dipped into the river. That is not what my doctor told me to do when I got cancer. Why don't you criticise the Naaman account on precisely the basis you criticise the Jacob genetic affair? Why are you so inconsistent? In Genesis 30 you claim that we must ascribe these wacky genetic ideas to God, but with Naaman you say we don't have to ascribe these wacky healing ideas to God. The think I dislike about normal TE approach, which is what you are engaged in, is that it is cafeteria-style theologytm. You get to arbitrarily select what you like for historicity and reject what you don't like. There is no coherent standard except your feelings, and maybe, that miraculous events are more probably to be non-historical.

Logically, if there is a theistic god who interferes with nature, then miracles can not be ruled out. The atheist who criticises Christians for believing stupid miracles is criticising from THEIR axiomatic system. They don’t' believe in God and thus it is logical for them to reject miracles. But for the theist, we have every reason to accept miracles. That doesn't mean that everything we think is a miracle is a miracle, and we must be on guard for agains charlatanry. But TE's seem to preferentially rule out miracles and that reduces God's omnipotence etc.

No, of course not. I don't believe trees clap their hands either but that doesn't mean I think Isaiah 55 is false. I think the order of Genesis 1 is false historically, but Genesis 1 remains true because I don't think its order is intended to be historical. I think either Matthew 4 or Luke 4 (or both) contain a non-historical order of Jesus' temptations, but I still believe both of those accounts are true too. You know that our difference in Genesis is in what type of literature we think the text is and not whether we believe it's true.

This is evasion. Trees don't have hands, but there are trees and fish. Answer the question. We don't know the order of the temptations and there is no basis upon which to judge what it was. One of the accounts is clearly out of order. It is eroneous in that regard. I will agree that that doesn't make the account of the individual temptations false, but it most assuredly does make one or another of the versions of the sequence wrong. But with Genesis, with the trees and the fish, and the sun, there is most assuredly a way to determine the proper order. And Genesis has it all wrong, IF one posits that this is the sequence of creation rather than the sequence of proclamation.

Because this "thingie" seems to be suggested by the text. Because the order makes more sense poetically (three days of creating realms, three matching days of creating inhabitants for these realms) than it does historically. Because it explains how the seventh day can be tied to both the Sabbath ordinance and God's rest that we can still enter.

And the ancient rabbis thought that was a reason for placing this into pre-temporal time.

The Babylonian Talmud says: "The Torah was to God, when he created the world, what the plan is to an architect when he erects a building." Sure they meant all the Torah, but as explained yesterday, that doesn't really matter as long as one believes in a God who can know the future.

The Babylonian Talmud also says: "for the world has only been created on account of the Torah, which, indeed, existed anterior to creation; and had the Creator not foreseen that Israel would consent to receive and diffuse the Torah, creation would not have taken place."

Unlike the typical TE view, I can trace the roots of my days of Proclamation view way back in time. TE in most of its forms is eisegetical.

I didn't point out any differences in the gospel accounts of the birth story. If you don't believe Revelation 12 is referring to the birth of Christ, just who do you think Revelation 12:5 refers to, if not the Messiah?

The church. But Revelation isn't my area of expertise. I am at the other end of the Scripture. And clearly Revelation is not a historical book, so I won't try to apply historical standards to it as you are trying to do. Genesis 1 claims to relate history--God created the earth

Also, you say that you see Revelation as different from the rest of Scripture. I see Genesis 1 as unique in Scripture, and Genesis 2-11 as quite different from Kings or Acts. However, I do not use that as an excuse to ignore these portions of Scripture.

I would disagree with that last sentence. You relegate them to a position of unimportance with them having no contact with reality. God tells us a story of our origins which you find historically false and incapable of incorporating modern science. Until I ran into the Days of proclamation interpretation I would have agreed with you, but I would have concluded that the claim of God as a creator was fraudulent. You seemingly (and amazingly) find it to be true. We have a vastly different standard of how truth is judged.

I asked you about this in my very first post in this thread. Why do you believe that I (and TEs in general) doubt that propositional statement? Let me state it emphatically: I believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

You accept that one statement but then deny everything else, which to me, means that the statement itself is to be questioned. I have a couple of patents in the works so I will use an analogy here. If I told you I invented the transistor chip, but I couldn't tell you anything about a chip, how it is made or what it is made of, would you think that my statement that I created the transistor chip is true and acceptable? Come on, you would think I am lying. But you give God a pass here. You say that he can convey in a divinely inspired account all sorts of nonsense and yet his claim that he created the world you find credible.

I once judged a science fair at the county level. These are the winners of the local contests. I was judging the physics section. One girl in the 5th grade had a project that I thought was a wee bit beyond where most 5th graders are. But I was willing to be convinced. I asked her to explain her project to me. My oldest son at that age could have done it. The girl couldn't explain a thing about her project. It was quite clear that one of her parents did the work and she won (cheating someone who had actually done the work out of coming to the county science fair). By your standard, you should accept her claim that she did the work because she baldly claims it to be true. That is what you are doing by accepting Genesis 1:1 and denying Genesis 1:2-11:32.

Of course it is. Until you understand that I accept God as Creator, this is going to be a futile discussion.

I believe you accept God as creator (never said you didn't), I think you are totally illogical in your reasoning for doing so. Indeed, I think your approach destroys any connection with reality in God's claim--the science fair girl syndrome is what I might designate this affliction.

I still get the point the author is driving home: God made everything! God's creative act is not limited to what Genesis 1 itemizes.

This illustrates the problem with your methodology that I dislike so much among my fellow TE's. If the only truth you can get out of Genesis 1 is the bald assertion that God created, but then everything else is false in how it was created then I question seriously the logic of believing the assertion.

I realize that you probably think inspiration precludes such things, but I don't. And that is why I have no trouble with Genesis 1 or Genesis 30, and why I see your approach to Genesis 30 as inconsistent with your approach to Genesis 1-3.

Only your personal listening filter would make you draw that conclusion. I know that God created more than what is enumerated. Shoot, I bet you can't find anyone who would take the contrarian position.

As to Genesis 30 if you can show me that God said that sticking patterns in front of the eyes of copulating sheep with produce the stripes, then I would agree that this is inconsistent. But since you can't, because it isn't there, but yet, you seem to read it into the passage, I won't and don't see the inconsistency on my part but do see it in your approach. In Genesis 1 God is making an assertion, "I created the heavens and the earth", but then if I am to believe you nothing he says past that point is factually correct, but I am still supposed to believe him. What illogic.

I own the Brooklyn Bridge, would you like to buy it from me? I am sure that we can come to some reasonable terms. Aren't you supposed to believe my assertion? I think you should because you believe a similarly evidentiaryless assertion by someone claiming to be God, but who knows nothing.

No, I would not approach a scientific paper the same way I approach Genesis 1. I thought we at least agreed that Genesis 1 wasn't a science text, and given that, I have no idea why you'd expect me to treat a science text the same way.

Then you think it is ok to believe that scientific silliness contains deep spiritual truth? I think this precisely because by treating Genesis as non-history, but then illogically claiming it to have deep theological meaning upon which we should base our lives, you are removing theology from reality. That is my basic complaint about normal TE approaches. The make it unreal. Making the Bible lose contact with reality is a sure way to make it irrelevant to people's lives.

No, Genesis 30 doesn't let us get into Jacob's head. As I explained above, we only know what he did, not what he thought, and the author seems to think his actions were at least partially responsible for his prosperity.

But you are acting as if Genesis 30 lets us get into God's head when God isn't even mentioned in relation to the prenatal influences. That is the entire reason you raised Genesis 30--but it is a mis-reading of the passage. Tell me where God told Jacob to do that wacky thing? You can't. It isn't there. I can only conclude that Jacob did it because he believed it to be efficacious. The alternative for me is that Jacob just does weird things every now and then for no apparent reason. Since that would mean Jacob was insane, I reject that hypothesis, but I see no basis upon which to ascribe this concept to God which you are so eager to do.

Similarly, Genesis 1 doesn't say God believes this is the order of creation. I don't even think it implies that the author thought that was how it worked, although that may be the case in later chapters. I won't mimic your last sentence because my guess is that, like me, you've thought long and hard about these issues.

I will actually agree with you here so we have one point of agreement. The Babylonian Talmud tells us that God didn't intend it to reflect the order and they use the Hebrew language to defend that position.

I have no idea where this came from. I pointed out that your quote from the Midrash Bereshith doesn't help your view of Genesis 1 being a description of pre-planning in a way the rest of the Torah isn't.

Do you or do you not believe that God can foretell the future?

grmorton

January 9th 2005, 02:13 PM

So many interpretations ===> It makes you wonder if the problem is that the Bible, while inspired, may not be as "inerrant" as many claim. The Bible never declared that of itself.

Or desparation to make it true no matter how we do that(YEC, Poetry, allegory etc), might have some role to play in this complaint.

Tickle Me Goody

January 9th 2005, 02:49 PM

Or desparation to make it true no matter how we do that(YEC, Poetry, allegory etc), might have some role to play in this complaint.That was not a complaint, Glen. It was an opinion that I happen to favor over all those "interpreations", as well as your own. What is the issue that you have with it?

kofh2u

January 9th 2005, 04:47 PM

I don't dispute that. However, that's not the only way God could communicate creation, and apparently it's not the way he chose. God could also have given us a simple but true account of his character with absolutely no anthropomorphisms or symbolism. Had he done so, probably fewer people would think of God (aside from God incarnate, Jesus) really having breath or arms. But again, he didn't choose to do that, perhaps because it was more important to get across that God is a personal being with a will and not just a diffused force. The mom in my story a few posts up could have constructed a simple but true account of conception, consistent with biology yet plain enough for even her young son to understand. But instead, she chose a version with factual inaccuracies. She deemed it more important to get across that making a baby was something intimate and special than to accurately convey all the physical details.

Of course, what these examples have in common is that the authority of the one condescending is not in question. God and the mom I mentioned don't prove themselves through what they convey -- in fact, understanding what they convey requires their listener to first accept that they are truly someone worth listening to. I don't believe the creation accounts prove that God is who he claims to be and I don't look to them to do that. Since you feel differently, I can understand why you don't like my view on this.

Anyway, I've explained many issues around the periphery but I haven't yet given my own view of why the order in Genesis 1 is the way it is. First, I think God's purpose in Genesis 1 is to establish that he is the only Creator and that he is involved with his creation. He revealed this without giving us the answers to questions we have the God-given ability to answer on our own (even if the answers aren't discovered in our lifetime). Genesis 1 doesn't tell us the shape of the world, and it uses terminology that would be very familiar to those who believed in a flat earth surrounded by water covered by the canopy of the heavens. The account is given from an earth-based perspective, so there is no hint that the earth orbits the sun or is dwarfed in size by the sun. While these may seem to be gross oversights for those who see the text as scientific in nature, it makes sense if you believe that the text is more interested in telling us about God and his relationship to humanity than in spilling all the secrets of how the universe works.

Further, God revealed the indescribable wonders of creation in a way that would make sense to the earliest humans as well as us. Even though I think we know more about the universe now than people did in Moses' day, there are still huge mysteries. Genesis 1 doesn't require an understanding of the immensity of stars or the amazing complexity of plant life. Instead, it tells of a creative act beyond our imagination by using terms we (and earlier humans) can understand.

Probably the most creative act a person can do is to make a story. Whether told orally, acted out on a stage or produced in a movie, a story allows a person to create a universe of their own, populated with the vistas and characters of their choosing. It is a form of creation that is known to virtually all cultures in all times, even though the methods of storytelling change. I think Genesis 1 describes how God created the universe using a structure familiar to any playwright or storyteller. It describes the three sets, or realms, and the three groups of characters that together make up this creation.

The first three days describe the three realms. The first realm (1:3-5) is space (or, the heavens). It is the upper reaches of the sky, higher than the birds. Aside from the sun, moon and stars, all this realm consists of (from an earthly perspective) is a gradual progression between light and dark, day and night.

The second realm (1:6-8) is sea and sky. Picture yourself on a tiny island just big enough to stand on. You're surrounded by the sea in every direction, and above you are only the clouds of the sky.

The third and final realm (1:9-13) is land. Note that this realm is created fully-furnished with all kinds of plants and trees. It, like the other realms, is complete except for the characters who will inhabit it.

The second set of three days describe the three groups of characters who inhabit each realm. First, the characters for space are added (1:14-19). Note that the sun is described as governing the day while the moon governs the night: the personification is natural since these are characters and not mere set dressing like the plants.

Second, the characters are added to the sea and sky (1:20-23). A scientist may wonder why whales and bats aren't created with the other mammals, but the point isn't to scientifically classify the animals. It also isn't classifying them according to worth (if that were the purpose, surely humans would have a day for themselves!). Instead, birds and fish (and bats and whales) are all characters that inhabit the second set, so they are all created on the fifth day.

Finally, the characters that live on land are created (1:24-31). This includes livestock, bugs, wild animals, and humans.

One thing I like about this interpretation is that everything fits on the right day. In fact, if you moved any one thing to a different day, it wouldn't make as much sense. This view is similar to how this creation account is sometimes divided into three days of forming that correspond with three days of filling, but unlike that view, the creation of plant life on day three isn't a problem. Unlike a literal historical reading, the creation of light first, then plants, then the sun makes perfect sense, and the personification of the sun and moon also makes sense. It also explains why animals span two days while humans are added at the end of day six instead of getting a day of their own.

Overall, Genesis 1 is an account of God's creation explained in terms humans throughout the ages can understand and relate to: a grand play being fashioned with three realms (or sets) corresponding to three groups of characters. It is not intended to explain the mysteries of the universe, but rather to point to the One who created those mysteries.

I tend to agree with your synopsis, "Overall, Genesis 1 is an account of God's creation explained in terms humans throughout the ages can understand and relate to: a grand play"...

I have said a number of times that over the ages, this amazing bible proves a work of literature that "lives" in that it is adaptable to the changing paradigm of future generations. Your point seems to express this also.

With regard to such a liberal view of Genesis, it seems all the more that YEC and OEC tone down their rather authoritative promotion of t ose ideas.

It would seem you support this, that the Fundamentalist ought acknowledge TE as aalid interpretation, one equally acceptable a their own. That the matter is much as you say, while the great time and effort ofGMorton has gone a long way in demonstrating valid reasons for the TE view more acceptable to the understandings of the secular community.

Again, the reason for expressing these supports for TE centers on the present insistence upon YEC as a prequisite to Christian membership.

I wonder if you might agree, that a fair presentation of Genesis ought be clear labelled, IMO, by churches which promote their particular take.

Mercury

January 9th 2005, 05:05 PM

I'm doing a bit of rearranging in this post to group my responses by topic.

On the purpose of creation accounts and the Bible:
I am not going to let you off the hook that easily. Take any of the hundreds of creation accounts which are accepted by the various religions around the world. How do you tell which is true?I've answered that a few times. I don't use the creation accounts as my primary basis in deciding whether or not a religion is true. If that were my primary basis, then it's fortunate that I live now rather than when the steady state model of the universe was widely accepted, since then I probably would have rejected the Bible outright. But, others have already made that point.
I don't go to Bill Clinton if I want any kind of truth about politics of the 1990s. Why would you go to a document for enlightenment which you admit doesn't present historical truth?By now you can probably write my own answer to that question. Because there are more kinds of truth than historical truth. That's also why I think Revelation is enlightening too, even though both of us agree it doesn't present historical truth. Since we're looping around anyway, I'll bring us full circle by saying there is truth in Jesus' parables even though they aren't historical. (By the way, you never did reply to how you tell what is a parable and what isn't. I hope this loop doesn't continue by you claiming that Jesus' parables are easy to spot by looking for the word "parable".)
No, he cared about memory. Poems are often easier to remember than prose. Many primitive societies have this kind of poetryThat does not discount literary beauty. There is beauty in symmetry and structure, and these things in turn aid memory. A beautiful piece of music is often more easily memorized than one that is more random and discordant. But, in any case, this is such a minor point it's not worth arguing about in detail. Suffice it to say that I think Genesis 1 is well crafted literarily.
The reason atheism is growing is that science actually tells us something real about nature and religion rightly or wrongly, is viewed as telling us only fables about reality.I would argue for "wrongly". There is more to reality than what science can tell us. I don't view science as atheistic, so I don't see the success of science as something bothersome to religion.
If I told you I invented the transistor chip, but I couldn't tell you anything about a chip, how it is made or what it is made of, would you think that my statement that I created the transistor chip is true and acceptable? Come on, you would think I am lying. But you give God a pass here.Again, this goes back to what is probably our fundamental disagreement. For you, Genesis 1-3 is the foundation of the Bible and the way God proves himself to you. For me, Jesus in the New Testament is the foundation of the Bible. I don't read Genesis as a defense statement by the God I am putting on trial.
Only your personal listening filter would make you draw that conclusion. I know that God created more than what is enumerated. Shoot, I bet you can't find anyone who would take the contrarian position.This is just a misunderstanding. If you go back to my post, the "such things" referred to the entire previous paragraph and not just the previous sentence. Sorry for the confusion.

On miracles:
You agreed that miracles are things which don't fit into the normal ordinary state of affairs. So why do you remove so many miracles from the Scripture? I mean, why is a talking snake so impossible a miracle?I thought I was very clear about that. I don't remove miracles from Scripture, but I am also reluctant to claim something is a miracle when it isn't stated as such in Scripture. I've already given a number of specific examples to demonstrate the difference that I won't repeat here. If I knew how you recognized parables, I could turn this question on you and ask why you remove so many parables from Scripture.
What has always amazed me about the TE's is something that makes their views (the ones I have run across) unacceptable to me is that they seem to take all the miraculous acts as being allegorical, misplaced beliefs or as simply wrong.Why are you mentioning that to me? I've clearly told you that I accept Balaam's donkey's speech, Namaan's healing and Jesus' resurrection as miracles because they are stated as such in the text. I do not automatically declare other events to be miraculous if they aren't stated or inferred to be miraculous by the text. In some of these cases, the events only seem miraculous if we force the text to be non-poetic historical narrative (such as reading trees clapping their hands as a miracle). In other cases it is more tricky, because something could seem natural to the author but now seem miraculous to us (such as the increase of spotted and speckled sheep in Genesis 30), or the miracle may now seem a lot bigger or different from what is described (such as the sun standing still in Joshua). I don't have a pat answer to all these cases, but I neither dismiss the miraculous from consideration nor read the miraculous into every event.
What gets me here is that you are so quick to ascribe Jacob's actions and beliefs of prenatal influence to those of God. [...] I don't see these beliefs as being endorsed by God any more than I see Rebekah's plan of deception being endorsed by God [...] But you are acting as if Genesis 30 lets us get into God's head when God isn't even mentioned in relation to the prenatal influences.I don't ascribe those beliefs to God and I don't know where you're getting that idea, especially since you've made it clear elsewhere that you don't believe God dictated Scripture. The author of this account did seem to accept Jacob's beliefs about prenatal influence, and God's inspiration of the account did not remove that. This does not mean God also had a faulty understanding here. I actually agree with you that it was because of God's blessing that Jacob prospered and not Jacob's cunning with the striped branches (I probably should have made this clear sooner). But, I don't claim that the inspired author of this passage was trying to get across that point here. The author -- and Jacob -- do acknowledge God's providence in Jacob's life in Genesis 31:6-9. I did not raise Genesis 30 as a parallel to the talking snake or a way to show God is mistaken on science, but rather to show that inspiration does not preclude authors from writing things that include the science of their day, even if it is later shown to be false.
Oh, Adam and Eve are not human witnesses of the snake speaking? Gee, I really thought they were human.Where did I say that? I said that no human witnesses was one (of many) reasons to take Genesis 1 as something other than historical narrative. The talking serpent is in Genesis 3. Earlier I've admitted that you have a much better case for historicity in Genesis 2-3 than in Genesis 1.
Why don't you criticise the Naaman account on precisely the basis you criticise the Jacob genetic affair? Why are you so inconsistent? In Genesis 30 you claim that we must ascribe these wacky genetic ideas to God, but with Naaman you say we don't have to ascribe these wacky healing ideas to God.The paragraph you quoted to make this comment already had my answers to these questions. Namaan did think that washing in a filthy river was a wacky idea. By contrast, Jacob didn't think his ideas about genetics were wacky, and neither did the author of the account. In the Namaan account, the wackiness is to show that it's not some hocus-pocus by Elisha or some magical water that healed him, but rather God himself. Namaan got this point as 2 Kings 5:15 shows. I think God blessed Jacob's flocks in spite of his striped branches, not because of them, but in that case the miracle was not as clearly evident to Jacob and the inspired author as it is to us today.

Other interpretational issues:
As to Hebrews 4, I would ask that you spell out what your objection is rather than merely throwing references to chapters around.Already did. Post #15.
We don't know the order of the temptations and there is no basis upon which to judge what it was. One of the accounts is clearly out of order. It is eroneous in that regard.Again, we disagree. I think at least one account may have had another reason for its order than chronology. Maybe Jesus' temptation by the devil was actually more involved than the three itemized temptations we have record of, and maybe those are just three themes that could be distilled from the full encounter. I don't know, and I think it's pointless to be dogmatic about it.
The church.You think the boy child in Revelation 12 is the church? That is certainly different, but then I'm no expert on Revelation either. Do you think the woman is Israel, Jesus or the Holy Spirit? Having the church symbolized by a boy child seems to be quite a reversal from the typical imagery!
And clearly Revelation is not a historical book, so I won't try to apply historical standards to it as you are trying to do.That's funny! :lol: No, I don't claim Revelation is a historical book, but I do think it has much in common with early Genesis. The reasons have already been explained by a few people in this thread so I won't repeat them.
Do you or do you not believe that God can foretell the future?Yes, I believe he can. I can't, and due to this I have no idea where you're going with this. I don't think God's knowledge of the future means Revelation should read as a historical account.

Mercury

January 9th 2005, 08:17 PM

Just a quick note to let you know that I am enjoying and interested in your comments.Thanks!
As a high school science teacher I wanted to comment that everyone knows kissing doesn't lead to babies ... Homecoming and Prom do. :wink: :lol:

As a science teacher and Christian, what's your take on Genesis 1?
So many interpretations ===> It makes you wonder if the problem is that the Bible, while inspired, may not be as "inerrant" as many claim. The Bible never declared that of itself.Agreed. It's inspired and useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness, but it isn't God made ink the way Jesus is God made flesh. God's attributes do not apply to the Bible. God's word is not entirely synonymous with the Bible (at least not always). The Word in John 1 is not the Bible. And, even if inerrancy is true to some degree, it is not provable and must be taken by faith. Attempts to prove it often lead to selectively ignoring passages (since when two passages seem to conflict, one must be reinterpreted to fit the other, and the choice of which and how is left up to the interpreter).
I tend to agree with your synopsis, "Overall, Genesis 1 is an account of God's creation explained in terms humans throughout the ages can understand and relate to: a grand play"...To be honest, I'm not sure that I understand your own view, but my speculation is that any similarities are only surface deep. I don't think your approach of giving a new meaning to each word or phrase in Scripture has much in common with mine, although perhaps to strict literalists both approaches seem much the same.

AllDay

January 9th 2005, 09:03 PM

As a science teacher and Christian, what's your take on Genesis 1?
My views on Gen 1 are somewhat fluctuating at the moment. I came from an upbringing that treated them as literal 24-hour days. We never really discussed it, but heck it says right there in the book "that was the second day" ... and "third day", etc. What's to discuss? But, what I learned through my education (professional biology) was something drastically different. For awhile I considered God using evolution as a strong possbility (it made sense to me that God would use the processes he created) but dropped the idea upon being introduced to AiG [I had no idea there was such a thing as theistic evolution]. I was under the impression that a REAL Christian believed it was 6 literal days. The more I read (and the more I read here), I realized not only was that (6 literal days) likely not the case, but it required what I call "more hope than faith".

What is Gen 1? Heck, I dunno. It seems like it is plausible that it's the story God conveyed to Moses (or to whomever wrote it and passed it on to Moses or whatever) to reveal a rationale for the commandment of the Sabbath. It conveyed to Moses and Isrealites the relationship between God, the Earth, and living things. It conveyed that man is special to God, and God seeks a relationship with man.

I think I made the mistake of reading Gen 1 as a science text. Does this mean that Genesis is telling lies and is full of errors? Not to me. It's the way God chose to convey the story. Did God really need to get into genetic mutations, natural selection and long periods of time to explain the creation, or did folks just need to know that [1] God did it, and to [2] keep the Sabbath holy, just as God did?

As someone pointed out the other day, the Genesis creation story also crushed the idea of other Gods, such as "God of Agriculture", and other similar ideas. How can one worship the sun as a God when "my God made the sun!"?

Looking back at some of my previously held ideas I feel somewhat foolish and naive, even ignorant. I don't view having evolution be God's mechanism of creation as "putting science over God". The suggestion of such, I now see, as a lowbrow manipulation tactic that needs to be squashed ... and squashed quickly.

Sometimes in regards to Gen 1, I think we can be the person that "misses the forest for the trees". We sweat the details so much that we fail to focus on the main overlying message. In truth, I agree with something lucaspa said the other day, when he mentioned that the early chapters of Genesis could be left from the Bible, and the Bible's message is not changed.

I don't claim to have any more than a foundational Science education and a basic knowledge of the Bible (i.e., I know the stories, but can't quote chapter and verse). I am commenting from the perspective of my interest outweighing my knowledge. I don't take my comments very seriously. I'm just an interested party. I relatively knew to deep Bible study and living for Christ. I've spent a significant part of my life living for myself.

If it's not obvious, I'm a fairly decent rambler.:stop:
--------------------------------

grmorton

January 9th 2005, 09:16 PM

We have probably exhausted our positions here so I will respond once more. You may have the last word.

I've answered that a few times. I don't use the creation accounts as my primary basis in deciding whether or not a religion is true. If that were my primary basis, then it's fortunate that I live now rather than when the steady state model of the universe was widely accepted, since then I probably would have rejected the Bible outright. But, others have already made that point.

As far as I can see all other bases upon which one can determine whether or not a religion is true is merely subjective. And that is another reason I reject your approach and that of the vast majority of TE's

(By the way, you never did reply to how you tell what is a parable and what isn't. I hope this loop doesn't continue by you claiming that Jesus' parables are easy to spot by looking for the word "parable".)

No, if it says something is 'like' a [insert something else here] then it is probably not historically valid.

I would argue for "wrongly". There is more to reality than what science can tell us. I don't view science as atheistic, so I don't see the success of science as something bothersome to religion.

While I agree with you that there is more to science than it can teach, it is also equally true that it is totally undemonstrable objectively. How do I demonstrate the validity of the theological concept that God loves me? I can't even verify that my wife has feelings of love towards me. She has certain behaviors which I interpret as indicating that, but then the love my children have for me takes an entirely different form, but I still interpret it as love. It is totally a subjective exercise. Mormons believe their Book, Muslims believe their book, Parsee's believe their religion, the Hindu's believe the Vedas. They all can't be true and they are all accepted subjectively. So your methodology has only subjectivism to offer because you reject the concept that theology MUST be connected to reality somehow in order for it to be REAL.

Again, this goes back to what is probably our fundamental disagreement. For you, Genesis 1-3 is the foundation of the Bible and the way God proves himself to you. For me, Jesus in the New Testament is the foundation of the Bible. I don't read Genesis as a defense statement by the God I am putting on trial.
This is just a misunderstanding. If you go back to my post, the "such things" referred to the entire previous paragraph and not just the previous sentence. Sorry for the confusion.

On miracles:
I thought I was very clear about that. I don't remove miracles from Scripture, but I am also reluctant to claim something is a miracle when it isn't stated as such in Scripture. I've already given a number of specific examples to demonstrate the difference that I won't repeat here. If I knew how you recognized parables, I could turn this question on you and ask why you remove so many parables from Scripture.[/quote]

How do you recognize a parable? By it containing a talking snake? :-)

I don't ascribe those beliefs to God and I don't know where you're getting that idea, especially since you've made it clear elsewhere that you don't believe God dictated Scripture. The author of this account did seem to accept Jacob's beliefs about prenatal influence, and God's inspiration of the account did not remove that. This does not mean God also had a faulty understanding here.

I am getting this from your statement that God doesn't know diddly about genetics because of Genesis 30. You first argued that That passage meant God didn't know and now you argue with me that it doesn't require that. You were the one who first brought that passage up, not me. You had written in a previous post:
"Does Genesis 30 give a false genetics account and then claim it is true? By this passage, can we conclude that God doesn't know anything about genetics and instead tells us fables? Basically, how do you interpret the Bible outside of Genesis 1-11?"

But, I don't claim that the inspired author of this passage was trying to get across that point here. The author -- and Jacob -- do acknowledge God's providence in Jacob's life in Genesis 31:6-9. I did not raise Genesis 30 as a parallel to the talking snake or a way to show God is mistaken on science, but rather to show that inspiration does not preclude authors from writing things that include the science of their day, even if it is later shown to be false.

Well you sure sounded like it in that quotation of yours above. Glad to hear that you don't think that.

Where did I say that? I said that no human witnesses was one (of many) reasons to take Genesis 1 as something other than historical narrative. The talking serpent is in Genesis 3. Earlier I've admitted that you have a much better case for historicity in Genesis 2-3 than in Genesis 1.

I am getting that idea from when you said: "2 Kings 5 reads quite different from Genesis 1 and has none of the indications of being non-historical as far as I can see. It doesn't reveal events for which there were no human witnesses; " If that is wrong, please correct it.

Again, we disagree. I think at least one account may have had another reason for its order than chronology. Maybe Jesus' temptation by the devil was actually more involved than the three itemized temptations we have record of, and maybe those are just three themes that could be distilled from the full encounter. I don't know, and I think it's pointless to be dogmatic about it.

This is the 'don't let the bible be false at any cost' approach. It is no big deal to me that the order is different but unless one believes in two temptations doing exactly the same things but in different orders, clearly one account is out of order. I can't see how any rational individual can conclude otherwise. It is no big deal because any history of any sequence of events is often out of order for various reasons, but one can't claim it is completely true either.

You think the boy child in Revelation 12 is the church? That is certainly different, but then I'm no expert on Revelation either. Do you think the woman is Israel, Jesus or the Holy Spirit? Having the church symbolized by a boy child seems to be quite a reversal from the typical imagery!

I actually think this is a rather widespread belief. I never heard anything different until I was about 20 years old. On the other hand, maybe I lived with a cult called the Southern Baptists too long. :-)

Yes, I believe he can. I can't, and due to this I have no idea where you're going with this. I don't think God's knowledge of the future means Revelation should read as a historical account.

Where I am going with this is that if God knows what will happen, then there is no reason he couldn't have written the entire history of the universe BEFORE it happened. That is what the ancient Jews thought actually happened. They thought the Torah was written before the beginning of the universe and then dictated to Moses. Your objection concerning the pre-temporal view IMO would require the rejection of God's prescience. Now, I don't follow entirely the Jewish view but I do think that the concept of the Torah, at least in part being involved with pre-temporality, is not a new idea. I find a bit of it in Basil when he wrote:

"If then the beginning of time is called "one day" rather than "the first day," it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call "one" the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others. " Basil Hexameron, Homily II.

I will let you have the last word. I have learned to do this from my rather vociferous debates with George Murphy along the same line. It is not my intention to make an enemy but then, I simply can't go the direction that so many go in these regards. I find the methodology flawed for the reasons I have stated and I find the destination of the interpretation to remove reality from God's involvement creation save by merely the statement that it was so. That won't satisfy me.

grmorton

January 9th 2005, 09:21 PM

That was not a complaint, Glen. It was an opinion that I happen to favor over all those "interpreations", as well as your own. What is the issue that you have with it?

There is one more aspect to the multi-interpretation issue. When I did my grad work in philosophy of science, I learned that for any given set of facts there is an infinite number of explanations. Most are trivial but they are still infinite in number. Theology is no less affected (or afflicted) with this problem than science.

Take the rotational velocities of stars in a galaxy. They don't fit Newtonian predictions. They might be explained by dark matter. And there are lots of suggestions as to what this dark matter might be, each of them technically is a different theory. The velocities might be explained by an alteration to Newtonian mechanics, such as MOND which postulates that there is a smallest quanta of acceleration.

There are lots and lots of interpretations of the data but that doesn't mean that the data is flawed.

kofh2u

January 9th 2005, 10:33 PM

To be honest, I'm not sure that I understand your own view, but my speculation is that any similarities are only surface deep.

I don't think your approach of giving a new meaning to each word or phrase in Scripture has much in common with mine, although perhaps to strict literalists both approaches seem much the same.

New meanings?

Maybe you might have a specific verse in mind, the meanings noted in brackets following specific words or phrases are not "new."

Yom, for instance is the actual Hebrew word used and translated for centuries as a "24 hour day."

The Hebrew dictionary lists a number of synonmys for this word.

One common meaning is "an extended duration of time."

Granted that my interpretation reads as a very long such duration of time, in fact, as an Era of millions of years. But, this is simply a choice, for that is all that has actually been involved in the bracketed interpretation.

Then, on the fourth "yom," the 24 hour meaning is sctually used, because the text specifically notes the crration of the concept of what we denote as a day.

Are you sure that your unabiding Faith in more traditional translations has not become confused with faith in Jesus?

I find many people willing to martyr themselves to preserve an interpretation past down by some guy 1000 years ago because of just such confusion. Their church has them defending thd denominational Faith.

Gen. 1:14 And God, (The Universal Force) said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, (astronomical symbolic references), and for times, (the four seasons), and for days, (the first ever "day" of 24 hours), and (365 day) years:

John 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

kofh2u

January 9th 2005, 11:18 PM

That was not a complaint, Glen. It was an opinion that I happen to favor over all those "interpreations", as well as your own. What is the issue that you have with it?

When you openly state that all present interpretations are opinion, all complaints disappear, IMO, and ought justifiable disappear.

1) The bible is unknowable, because it is sealed.

Dan. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words (of the Old Testament), and seal the book (read by many concerned with death and hell), even to (2K4AD), the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, (traveling freely by land, sea, and even air), and knowledge (in the Information Age) shall be increased.

2) The bible will be unsealed and explained by the authorized "expert," who is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David.

Rev. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

3) Those who insist they "know," that their interpertation is absolute, particularly Fundamentalists, but even individuals, and/or other denominational churches are arrogant, close-minded, and a stumbling block to newbies.

Mercury

January 10th 2005, 02:20 AM

We have probably exhausted our positions here so I will respond once more. You may have the last word.Okay. I'll keep it short and focus mainly on where you asked for a response.
No, if it says something is 'like' a [insert something else here] then it is probably not historically valid.Thanks. If that's your entire standard, then Jesus' stories about the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32), and the Great Banquet (Luke 14:15-24) are not parables, along with a few others. While I disagree, it's good to know your take on parables.
How do you recognize a parable? By it containing a talking snake? :-)I don't think there's a clear-cut way to do so, although certainly some are very easy to recognize. I think all the stories I mentioned above are parables. Some parts of Genesis 2-11 may be closer to parables than historical records, but I suspect they don't fit in either category and I consider many interpretations ranging from yours to lucaspa's to be possibilities (and yes, that's quite a range). I don't believe the book of Job is historical or a parable but instead more like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet: a dramatization based on the lives of real people. (Of course, it has the crucial difference of being a drama written under divine inspiration -- I think it's quite possible for God to inspire this type of literature.) So, I don't think there's any sure-fire way to spot a parable, although common sense and context goes a long way.
I am getting this from your statement that God doesn't know diddly about genetics because of Genesis 30.Actually, that was your expression (see post #40, half-way down). I brought up Genesis 30 to address this comment of yours: "What is one to think of a God who has no friggin idea what happened at creation but spins a good yarn anyway". My contention has been that even though the author of a passage doesn't understand modern genetics (or the historical and scientific details of creation) this doesn't mean God is equally ignorant.
Where did I say that? I said that no human witnesses was one (of many) reasons to take Genesis 1 as something other than historical narrative. The talking serpent is in Genesis 3. Earlier I've admitted that you have a much better case for historicity in Genesis 2-3 than in Genesis 1.I am getting that idea from when you said: "2 Kings 5 reads quite different from Genesis 1 and has none of the indications of being non-historical as far as I can see. It doesn't reveal events for which there were no human witnesses; " If that is wrong, please correct it.No, that's right. Note that I didn't mention anything about Genesis 3 or a talking snake here. That's a different issue. I'm not sure why you thought I was saying there were no human witnesses to the talking serpent.
This is the 'don't let the bible be false at any cost' approach. It is no big deal to me that the order is different but unless one believes in two temptations doing exactly the same things but in different orders, clearly one account is out of order. I can't see how any rational individual can conclude otherwise.Not at all. It's the "don't require more of the text than necessary" approach. It's possible that Jesus was tempted for a number of days in many ways that defy human comprehension. The summary of that temptation may line up with what actually happened similarly to how the creation week lines up with the actual history of our universe. In other words, Matthew and Luke may be using their own framework to detail Jesus' temptation. As to whether this makes the Bible less true or the gospels less trustworthy, since what actually happened during Jesus' temptation had no human witnesses, I don't think it really matters. If you were wondering if I ever use my approach to Genesis 1 elsewhere in the Bible, then here's a case where I do (although here I'm less certain about doing so).

Anyway, thanks for the discussion grm. I enjoyed it and learned some things.

lucaspa

January 10th 2005, 03:36 PM

I wouldn't call the ID position tired or worn out firstly.

ID was worn out in the 1840s. People like Blythe had already noted both the scientific and theological problems with it. What Behe calls "irreducible complexity" is simply the "what use is half a wing" argument by Georges St. Mivart used in the 1860s applied to biochemical systems. The answers Darwin gave Mivart in the 6th Edition of Origin apply equally well to IC.

lucaspa

January 10th 2005, 04:01 PM

The keystone of our faith is the resurrection, and that miracle is falsifiable. There is enough evidence to support it as history and to claim its truth.
Charleen, just how is the resurrectoin scientifically falsifiable? What physical evidence of the resurrection has survived to this day? You certainly can't use the absence of a body. :)

There is enough evidence I know about to say that a person named Yeshu ben Joseph lived, preached, and was executed in First Century Palestine. What historical evidence is there of the resurrection?

I am not one to say the Bible is above falsifiability. It needs to be in order to claim truth for it.
I disagree here. Being falsifiable and being true are 2 different things. Something can be true but unfalsifiable and falsifiable and not true. For instance, Hawking's No Boundary Proposal is not falsifiable but may be true.

I'll admit I say innocent until proven guilty. But I am open for evidence. Evidence for human evolution turned my world upside down but I listened because it is reasonable. I believe errors in the Bible also have reasonable answers. Define "errors". :) Don't "errors" depend on the interpretation?

I'd so love to be able to speak to Christians who don't believe the accounts before Abraham are historical. I'd like to know how they defend that view.
OK, you got one. God has two books: scripture and creation. When Creation contradicts scripture, we take creation. Always have. That's a long tradition within Christianity. Scripture gets reinterpreted or ignored. Look at the passages that say the earth is immovable. Now, are their true THEOLOGICAL messages in the stories prior to Abraham? Yes.

I've recently been looking at the Cain and Abel story again in the light of the religions in the countries surrounding Israel. Remember, Marduk is the Babylonian god of agriculture. Now, when Cain and Abel bring sacrifices, what are they? Cain brings agricultural plants! Yahweh rejects them. That's telling Israel that you can't present the same sacrifices to Yahweh that you present to Marduk. Cain doesn't like the rejection and does what? Kills Abel. Then God punishes Cain. So, how does the story read if Cain stands for Babylon and Abel for Israel. Yahweh rejects the Babylonian sacrifices and accepts Israel. So Babylon gets angry and conqueors Israel. Now, Babylon hasn't been punished yet at the time of the story, but Israel is certainly hoping it will be.

lucaspa

January 10th 2005, 04:30 PM

Second thing, I will not treat theology differently than we treat science. By that I mean this. In science we don't go around saying how wonderful phlogiston theory is for chemistry, how it communicates sublime symbolic truth about nature to us. We don't go around praising the allegory presented by the luminiferous ether and come up with reasons why it is true, even if it was physically falsified by the Michelson-Morely experiements. WE simply say they are false and move on.

The reason for this, is that when I was a YEC, I was happily living in a world of pseudoscience and fantasy. ONce I came out of it, I figured I didn't want to go back to that kind of world. Give me reality, cold hard and simple. What I see in most TE viewpoints is more retreat from that cold, hard and simple reality. We move to a world of allegories, poetry, symbolism and declare it all true. But, IMO, it ain't TRUE; it ain't REAL. In theology, no matter how false something is, we never declare it to be false--YEC or TE.
Glenn, YEC is a scientific theory. So you can, and should, declare it false. And, in fact, YEC has been declared false.

However, theology is different from science. Science uses only intersubjective experience: experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. So the experience has to be repeatable. Religion allows one time experience and experience confined to one person or a group of persons.

You and I can't go to the Red Sea, raise our hands, and have the Sea part. The experience of Moses and the Hebrews is not intersubjective. This makes it difficult, but not impossible, to get everyone to agree that a theological idea is false. For instance, the Jews never agreed that Judaism was wrong and Christianity correct. Christians have never agreed that Mohammed's experience is accurate and, therefore, Christianity is wrong.

However, WITHIN Christianity, certain theological ideas have been declared false. Also, within the wider theist community, many, many versions of deity have been declared false. Know anyone worshipping Woden these days? Or Marduk?

Within Christianity, Gnosticism and Manicheanism, for just two examples, were declared false. When Trinity was debated, the views of Arius were declared to be false. When the books for the Bible were being decided, many were declared false and not included in the canon. Thank God. Have you ever read the Infant Gospel of Thomas? :)

Now, if you look only at TE and YEC, the fight is still going on. But most of Christianity has already declared YEC to be false. Remember, even tho phlogiston chemistry was false, there were phlogiston chemists who went to their grave not accepting that it was false! Also, Einstein never fully accepted quantum mechanics, either.

that there was absolutely no (zero, zip, nada) evidence for widespread flooding in Mesopotamia,
Uh, there is considerable archeological evidence for flooding in Mesopotamia. Several times, I think. How did you get away with the "no evidence" argument?

If what God reportedly did in creation, depends upon the Hebrew culture, then we don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to theological demands. Do they depend upon Hebrew culture as well? I have a friend Paul Seeley who basically says yes to that. He has an evolving religion as I see it. God's theology changes with the change of culture. That means we might be wrong to love our neighbor in some cultures but right in others. Such a capricious God is not someone I want to depend upon for knowing the path of salvation. My friend Paul (and he is a friend) says crazy things like:

"It is then out of respect for the heart condition of
those to whom He spoke that God sometimes drew back from
telling the absolute truth. Rather than forcing upon men
with culturally weakened moral or intellectual capacities
the unbearable light of pure truth. He condescended to
adjust His revelatory lesson to their mistaken views. He
gave them milk until they were ready for solid food (John
16:12; I Corinthians 3:1,2; Galatians 3:23-4:7) and
sometimes that milk was a watered down compromise with the
pure truth (Matthew 17:25-27; 19:8; Acts 16:3)."

The problem with this is that it throws everything God says onto a sea of milk. Which statements of God are absolute truth and which are milk?
I don't see why you are so vehemently opposed to this.
1. People can't accept concepts that they don't have language for.
2. You can't give messages to a culture that they can't understand. You must have noticed that the OT portrays a partisan God with His Chosen People. In the NT we get a more universal religion where everyone is considered people. You don't think it coincidence that this waits until the existence of the Roman Empire, which granted citizenship to people REGARDLESS of their tribal affiliations? Finally, humans had come to realize on their own that people in another tribe were also people. Any message of complete brotherly love before this time would not have gotten thru.

In both the OT and NT, slavery is permitted and condoned. We don't condone it anymore. Should we all God a "situational ethicist" because we changed out concept of ethics? And yes, the people would have left if given concepts that they weren't ready for. Watch what happens to your young children if you try to tell them the "complete truth" about television -- the complete truth of how a TV works. Watch their eyes glaze and they wander away. Shoot, you can do the same thing by putting English majors in an advanced physics class!

You might disagree, but if you(or anyone here) treated me the way Seely says God treats us, I wouldn't beleive a darn thing you said.Then I suppose you don't believe your parents anymore. After all, didn't they shade the truth about things while you were growing up? Don't you shade the truth to your kids? After all, when they ask you and your wife where you are going in the afternoon, don't you say "nap" rather than what you are REALLY doing?