Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
The Bible is full of error?? Interesting. Why trust ANYTHING in a Bible that is full of error, contains "hebrew mythology" as you say, etc? After all, it might just be full of error about everything else, including salvation.
It may very well be...which is why one needs faith, and a reason to trust in God besides the Bible.
Why trust a God who cannot provide us with a book that is not full of error? Obviously, he has attempted communication, but seems unable to speak clearly.
God speaks to me loud and clear. He probably spoke to the Ancient Hebrews loud and clear as well, and they tried to relay the message onto us. But after a few thousand years... well, It's their attempt at communication that got a bit garbled, not God's.
__________________ "If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'Nothing's that simple!' But you've been told many times before,
Messiahs pointed to the door, And no one had the guts to leave the temple!" -- The Who
Really though I need to build up this line of thinking before I can even attempt to give you the whole story. Your answers will tell me how far I can go.
How should the glory be given? Publicly, privately or both? Does it matter?
Originally Posted by Mallon
Exacly! Are you sure you're not a TE? Similarly, whether the Hebrews thought the earth was old, young, flat, or round doesn't change the meaning of the creation or Flood stories! I'm glad we could clear this up.
The problem with that line of thinking is that the Bible clearly states the truth to these stories. No where is one led to believe they are mythological, allegorical, or any other cal. Besides the meaning to the stories gets changed quite a bit when you state trillions of days as opposed to 6 days and whether the characters and genealogies of the story are real or not.
For most people the whole sin originated from a man who never existed story would change everything. To be perfectly honest, I truly can't and won't allow myself even entertain such heretical thoughts.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
How should the glory be given? Publicly, privately or both? Does it matter?
I'll play along. Both.
The problem with that line of thinking is that the Bible clearly states the truth to these stories.
What truth? The spiritual truth or the historical truth? It seems to me that any time the ancient Hebrews referenced the "windows" of heaven, the stars in the "firmament", or the "pillars" on which the earth rests, they believed it to be historical, literal truth as well. Not because God told them it was true, but because that's the worldview framework which they possessed at the time. God can teach us the same lessons He taught those ancient Hebrews through our current worldview framework, too, if He chose. And I would fully expect people in the distant future would laugh at our naive understanding of the world, too. But that wouldn't negate the spiritual truths the Lord attempts to convey through our feeble minds.
Besides the meaning to the stories gets changed quite a bit when you state trillions of days as opposed to 6 days and whether the characters and genealogies of the story are real or not.
What do you feel are the ultimate spiritual meanings we are meant to take from the Genesis account? How does interpreting (some) of the account allegorically change the morals God intended us to learn?
For most people the whole sin originated from a man who never existed story would change everything. To be perfectly honest, I truly can't and won't allow myself even entertain such heretical thoughts.
It's something all TEs wrestle with, too. Similarly, people used to wrestle with the idea that God would allow his 'perfect' creation to go extinct, or that God would not put his earthly creation at the centre of the universe.
That said, I personally believe man is accountable for his own sin regardless of whether we evolved from "lower" lifeforms or not. I believe sin did enter the world through man, for I do not believe it to be a sin if animals die. It is only a sin for man to do die like the animals, for they do not have eternity in their hearts (Psalm 49).
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Does it matter if one doesn't acknowledge God publicly if one has the opportunity?
Originally Posted by Mallon
What truth? The spiritual truth or the historical truth?
Both are very important.
Originally Posted by Mallon
It seems to me that any time the ancient Hebrews referenced the "windows" of heaven, the stars in the "firmament", or the "pillars" on which the earth rests, they believed it to be historical, literal truth as well.
Lots of people love to speculate on this matter, for me I find such speculation fruitless and unimportant. Without any direct knowledge to the contrary one should assume the text to be historical unless the context clearly states otherwise.
Originally Posted by Mallon
Not because God told them it was true, but because that's the worldview framework which they possessed at the time.
What worldview framework did they possess at the time?
Originally Posted by Mallon
God can teach us the same lessons He taught those ancient Hebrews through our current worldview framework, too, if He chose.
I don't believe my worldview is all that much different that the ancient Hebrews one. From everything I've read in the Bible I don't think God approves of multiple worldviews.
Originally Posted by Mallon
And I would fully expect people in the distant future would laugh at our naive understanding of the world, too.
Worldly people yes, Christians no.
Originally Posted by Mallon
What do you feel are the ultimate spiritual meanings we are meant to take from the Genesis account? How does interpreting (some) of the account allegorically change the morals God intended us to learn?
I do believe the spiritual meaning would change if the account were allegorical. Allegory is best used to convey a previously known or stated truth that is hard to understand; at least that's how I've always seen it used. So the morals of the story don't change, but the effectual impact of them does when the individual who reads the story knows that the individuals and circumstances of the story are fictional. I can attest to this personally, when I read a book or see a movie that is based on a true story its personal impact is far greater than one which isn't.
Originally Posted by Mallon
It's something all TEs wrestle with, too. Similarly, people used to wrestle with the idea that God would allow his 'perfect' creation to go extinct, or that God would not put his earthly creation at the centre of the universe.
Many people, myself included, believe God did put us at the centre of the universe.
Originally Posted by Mallon
That said, I personally believe man is accountable for his own sin regardless of whether we evolved from "lower" lifeforms or not.
Without a doubt we agree here.
Originally Posted by Mallon
I believe sin did enter the world through man, for I do not believe it to be a sin if animals die. It is only a sin for man to do die like the animals, for they do not have eternity in their hearts (Psalm 49).
In order to better understand what you're saying here could you please specify what is scripture and what isn't. Thanks.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
I do believe the spiritual meaning would change if the account were allegorical. Allegory is best used to convey a previously known or stated truth that is hard to understand; at least that's how I've always seen it used. So the morals of the story don't change, but the effectual impact of them does when the individual who reads the story knows that the individuals and circumstances of the story are fictional. I can attest to this personally, when I read a book or see a movie that is based on a true story its personal impact is far greater than one which isn't.
I'm personally not convinced that this is the case with Genesis 1. Would you care to show how this is true with that particular passage? For me, I think an Israelite living a few thousand years ago, thinking of the earth as a flat plate propped on foundations with a transparent dome over his head covered by immense waters, would get the same meanings out of Genesis 1 as I do today treating it allegorically: that God is in control, that the created is not to be worshiped as the Creator, that man is made in the image of God, that God is orderly in all He does, etc.
I don't see how reading it literally in this age and time adds anything to its meaning, other than making it an isolated passage speaking about a certain moment in creation (instead of a paradigmatic passage speaking to us at every point in life) and making it say that "evolution is an evil atheist lie!". But perhaps you see it differently. How do you think the message of Genesis 1 changes when it is read allegorically? Specifics please.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
I'm personally not convinced that this is the case with Genesis 1. Would you care to show how this is true with that particular passage? For me, I think an Israelite living a few thousand years ago, thinking of the earth as a flat plate propped on foundations with a transparent dome over his head covered by immense waters, would get the same meanings out of Genesis 1 as I do today treating it allegorically: that God is in control, that the created is not to be worshiped as the Creator, that man is made in the image of God, that God is orderly in all He does, etc.
I don't believe seeing the earth as you described or as a sphere would have any real effect on how an Israelite saw Genesis 1. But reading it with the understanding that 6 days really equals trillions of days and the characters mentioned being fictional would. How would I know what was or wasn't fictional. I know, I know, to you that isn't important because it's the moral of the story which is. I don't think that way.
Originally Posted by shernren
I don't see how reading it literally in this age and time adds anything to its meaning, other than making it an isolated passage speaking about a certain moment in creation (instead of a paradigmatic passage speaking to us at every point in life) and making it say that "evolution is an evil atheist lie!". But perhaps you see it differently. How do you think the message of Genesis 1 changes when it is read allegorically? Specifics please.
I can only speak for myself now. If it were allegorical I would then question the need for a savior and just what the author was trying to convey. If six days doesn't mean six days and Adam wasn't real how can I know that sin he committed was real? How can I trust other key elements? Again, this is me, I can't speak for anyone else.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
Thing is: we didn't always know the earth was round. The ancient Hebrews certainly didn't believe this, which is why they wrote about it having four corners and resting on pillars.
Originally Posted by The Lady Kate
God speaks to me loud and clear. He probably spoke to the Ancient Hebrews loud and clear as well, and they tried to relay the message onto us. But after a few thousand years... well, It's their attempt at communication that got a bit garbled, not God's.
[bible]2 Timothy 3:16[/bible]
pasa grafh qeopneusatos (I sure wish Erwin would put a full set of Greek characters on this site)
The above portion of Scripture is what is called a "predication." A quality, characteristic, or state is asserted about the subject, in this case, the word "grapha," writing or scripture. Literally, it means "All Scripture is divinely breathed in" which we get the modern rendering of "all Scripture is given by God." My questions:
Is Scripture really God breathed?
Does God have halitosis?
Is Scripture really NOT God breathed?
If you say #1, then all Scripture is without error and the problem is in your interpretation.
If you say #2, then God is not perfect and is simply a flawed powerful being. God tried, but couldn't preserve his word for all generations of the church.
If you say #3, then THIS scripture passage is a lie and how can you trust anything in a collection of books which have lies. Hebrew mythology might not only be limited to the earth being flat and cute stories about naked people with fig leafs. Hebrew mythology might also encompass stories about redemption from Egypt by fictious angels and an imaginary God. How can you know and trust anything in the Bible? (serious question)
As for me, when I look at the heavens and the earth, I see a world which is not contradictory to a literal reading of the Scriptures (I reserve the right to define what I mean by literal).
Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....
Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist Woody.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by CCWoody; 10th July 2006 at 11:16 PM.
If you say #1, then all Scripture is without error and the problem is in your interpretation.
Certainly not in doctrine. Scripture is the canon for sound doctrine. However, if God made Himself known to a particular group of human beings, He had to make Himself known in terms they would understand. Even if we say that a scientific framework is better than an ancient framework (and I'm not prepared to do that, except in this argument) rather than revealing a scientific framework to them, He chose to reveal Himself in the ancient framework, probably thinking that that was more important.
Science, and the resulting framework, is vanity insofar as it is an end unto itself, even in the lofty goal of thinking the thoughts of God after He has thought them. When one condemns the ancient worldview, explicitly by calling it insufficient for God's purpose, or implicitly by denying its presence in the Scriptures, one is condemning the Scriptures, themselves.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If six days doesn't mean six days and Adam wasn't real how can I know that sin he committed was real? How can I trust other key elements? Again, this is me, I can't speak for anyone else.
Isn't it enough to know that your sin is real?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
I do believe the spiritual meaning would change if the account were allegorical. Allegory is best used to convey a previously known or stated truth that is hard to understand; at least that's how I've always seen it used. So the morals of the story don't change, but the effectual impact of them does when the individual who reads the story knows that the individuals and circumstances of the story are fictional. I can attest to this personally, when I read a book or see a movie that is based on a true story its personal impact is far greater than one which isn't.
But really, I don't see how that is a great objection to me. All around us, truth is often expressed through fiction. When we talk of love we often use the example of "Romeo and Juliet", even though those are fictional people in a play written by a certain person. We tell our children fairy-tales to teach them moral lessons; Jesus did use parables to bring His points across, and many of the crucial ones like the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son aren't packaged as parables at all if one looks at their wording.
So why can't the very real truth of God's creative activity and man's sinful rebellion be transmitted through fiction? What more when the pre-scientific culture of the Israelites would not have been able to handle accounts of how it really happened.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Similarly, whether the Hebrews thought the earth was old, young, flat, or round doesn't change the meaning of the creation or Flood stories! I'm glad we could clear this up. 
Linear Mode
