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.
No doubt people can and do learn moral truths through fictional means. However, if something is presented as history but actually is an allegory, that is not clearly defined, wouldn't that be confusing? How can one use allegory to describe a historical event without clearly defining the terms? Are there such stories? I can't say I've come across one before.
There are such stories, the parables of Jesus. And some people got mighty confused by them, didn't stop Jesus using them though.
Does it matter if one doesn't acknowledge God publicly if one has the opportunity?
I think a Christian should always publicly acknowledge God if they have the opportunity. And if I'm sensing where you're headed with this, I see TEs publicly acknowledge the Lord all the time -- yes, even in the light of evolution (come to a Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting some time).
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.
Unimportant? The issue has direct bearing on what we're discussing! I'm a little astonished you would say something like this.
In any case, I think it seems fairly obvious that the Hebrews did, in fact, have a somewhat naive view of the cosmos, given the context of the verses I cited several pages back. What I can't seem to understand is how these seem "obviously figurative" to creationists, but not the creation account. Evidently, it stems solely from an inbred hate for the evolutionary theory, as this is about the only thing creationists can agree on re: origins theology.
Without any direct knowledge to the contrary one should assume the text to be historical unless the context clearly states otherwise.
Why? Does the Bible teach this? What kind of "direct knowledge to the contrary" do you find acceptable? Evidently, science doesn't count.
What worldview framework did they possess at the time?
Flat earth on pillars, solid firmament above (with windows), no knowledge of the Americas, no concept of exceedingly large numbers, sheol, etc.
I don't believe my worldview is all that much different that the ancient Hebrews one.
A scary thought indeed!
But in all seriousness, you certainly do have a different worldview than those early Hebrews (see above). Even your insistance on the importance of historicity revealing truth is a relatively recent mindset, rooted in the "Enlightenment."
I do believe the spiritual meaning would change if the account were allegorical.
Shernren and The Lady Kate have done an excellent job at taking you to task on this one, so I'll let them take over on this issue. They do a much better job at representing TEs than I ever could.
Many people, myself included, believe God did put us at the centre of the universe.
At the literal or the figurative centre? That's the key.
In order to better understand what you're saying here could you please specify what is scripture and what isn't. Thanks.
... the Bible...
__________________ 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.
-- Charles Darwin
Last edited by Mallon; 11th July 2006 at 11:07 AM.
Without any direct knowledge to the contrary one should assume the text to be historical unless the context clearly states otherwise.
More evidence that Creationists impose their own interpretation on the text rather than take it on it's own merits. Why should a historical interpretation be assumed? Because that is what scientific modern-day post-enlightenment man would assume, never mind how pre-scientific bronze-age herdsmen would interpret it. It's cultural snobbery of the worst kind because it affects how we treat scripture.
Unimportant? The issue has direct bearing on what we're discussing! I'm a little astonished you would say something like this.
The fact is we don't know what the ancient Hebrews were thinking. There isn't anything to accurately indicate their thoughts, just a lot of speculation on our part. The bottom line is God didn't clarify this to a degree sufficient for you, it is more than sufficient for me.
Originally Posted by Mallon
In any case, I think it seems fairly obvious that the Hebrews did, in fact, have a somewhat naive view of the cosmos, given the context of the verses I cited several pages back. What I can't seem to understand is how these seem "obviously figurative" to creationists, but not the creation account.
I'm astonished that many Christians can't see these texts as being written clearly and concisely without ambiguity or lack of information.
Originally Posted by Mallon
Evidently, it stems solely from an inbred hate for the evolutionary theory, as this is about the only thing creationists can agree on re: origins theology.
The only thing I know of being 'inbred', since becoming a Christian, is a desire for the truth.
Originally Posted by Mallon
Why? Does the Bible teach this? What kind of "direct knowledge to the contrary" do you find acceptable? Evidently, science doesn't count.
True science can be direct, much of today's science isn't.
Let me ask you something. If a text is being presented as historical why would you presume otherwise unless there was a prejudice against it.
Originally Posted by Mallon
Flat earth on pillars, solid firmament above (with windows), no knowledge of the Americas, no concept of exceedingly large numbers, sheol, etc.
None of the those items are critical to anything and doesn’t tell me anything to their worldview.
Originally Posted by Mallon
A scary thought indeed!
But in all seriousness, you certainly do have a different worldview than those early Hebrews (see above). Even your insistance on the importance of historicity revealing truth is a relatively recent mindset, rooted in the "Enlightenment."
My worldview is that God created everything by divine fiat within a six day time capsule. I believe their absolutes were similar to mine. I believe they also saw history as a linear and meaningful sequence of events leading to the fulfillment of God's purposes for man. So no, I don’t see my worldview being different than theirs at all.
Originally Posted by Mallon
At the literal or the figurative centre? That's the key.
Literal
Originally Posted by Mallon
... the Bible...
I was referring to your quote of Psalm 49. It didn’t seem to be all biblical and it didn’t reference the verses.
__________________ 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."
It might, but if the moral truth is clear enough, so what?
As long as the message gets though, why quibble over the medium?
It wouldn't have God's fingerprints on it, that's why. Besides the message isn't getting through.
Originally Posted by The Lady Kate
George Orwell's Animal Farm comes to mind. Whether you read it literally as a story as animals on a farm, or as an allegory of the Russian Revolution, the moral comes through: Many revolutions fail because those who come to power become corrupted by it. Is there any point in Animal Farm where Orwell has to spell out that it's allegorical?
I read that book a long time ago and until reading your analysis never knew it to be a historical allegory on the Russian revolution.
Originally Posted by The Lady Kate
My own experience with allegories is quite the opposite: You don't have to be told that the story is historical or allegorical, because the message comes through loud and clear either way.
Obviously the message didn't come through loud and clear for me.
Originally Posted by The Lady Kate
An allegory that needs to be explained is a failed one.
Truer words you've never stated. That is exactly what evolution is, an allegory that requires an explanation.
__________________ 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 can't believe you are saying this. G.K. Chesterton once said that original sin is the one doctrine for which we have empirical proof. We all know from experience that we are not what we ought to be; that we do what we ought not to do, that we speak hurtful words and think unkind and selfish thoughts.
As an atheist or agnostic what is it that I ought to be? What experience or knowledge tells me this?
===========================
Originally Posted by gluadys
Or rather feelings of guilt and shame are signals that tell us we have sinned.
Shoot guilt and shame, woah that's heavy. That doesn't sound like something I want to experience o.k.? If that's what your pushing, count me out.
Originally Posted by gluadys
So? How does that make you without sin? Does it mean you did not do or think or say those things that gave rise to the feelings?
You keep coming back to this sin thing, do you have some sort of obsession with bad feelings or something. If so I can put you onto some better stuff that won't cause those side effects. My evolutionary history doesn't have a home for those feelings, my ancestors didn't have them either. I've evolved beyond guilt and condemnation, so please keep that stuff to yourself.
Originally Posted by gluadys
But sin really did and does happen.
C'mon just because you have problems doesn't mean we all do. Sure your've got some mythological figure in a mythological story that tells me about your sin, but since he's your figure and isn't in my family tree I think I'll just be cool with who I know I am.
Originally Posted by gluadys
What does it matter if one particular individual did or did not sin, when all of us sin all the time?
Now you're starting to talk my language. It doesn't matter whether this dude Adam sinned or not because remember he's a fairy tale, you know fable not real. Why did you have to spoil it with this 'all of us' stuff? Look, you're more than welcome to speak for yourself on that but don't lay that trip on me. I'm doing just fine, thank you very much.
Originally Posted by gluadys
As I see it my sin is Adam's sin.
Now you're weirding out on me again, your sin is the same as some dude's who never actually walked on the earth and yet you believe he's the one who started it all. Now that is some wacko stuff you must be on to believe that. I'm no rocket scientist but how does someone start something if he never actually, like ah lived? Know what I mean there, now that's really heavy stuff! Stuff that potent has got to have some serious side effects.
Originally Posted by gluadys
That is what Adam's sin is: the sin of humanity. Because that is who Adam is: all of us who are human.
You're sure laying a lot on me for a dude who never existed. Man I hate to tell you this but I think the side effects are getting worse, you had better lay off that stuff for a while.
Originally Posted by gluadys
Your experience of the presence of God in your life.
Like ah, wow, now your talking my lingo, you're telling me like...I can experience god? Now that's one drug I've never done before, man what would it take for you to pass that on, that's one I'd really like to try? What's a toke of that stuff cost?
O.K. I had a little fun here, but I hope you got my meaning. If Adam wasn't real and his story wasn't either, then why would I believe what you would tell me about his sin to be real?
__________________ 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."
It wouldn't have God's fingerprints on it, that's why. Besides the message isn't getting through.
God can't put His fingerprints on an allegory?
And personally, I think the message is getting through perfectly... once people stop worrying about whether it's historical or allegorical and actually read it... but that's just my opinion.
I read that book a long time ago and until reading your analysis never knew it to be a historical allegory on the Russian revolution.
Nevertheless, you got the moral, didn't you? Especially when you read the last line... "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Even if you did something completely absurd.... and read Animal Farm as a literal, historical document... you still would've gotten the message, wouldn't you?
Obviously the message didn't come through loud and clear for me.
I don't believe that... perhaps the means didn't come through, but did you get the message about the nature of revolutions? (We are still talking about Animal Farm, right?
The message gets through, but it's not always easy to recognize...
Truer words you've never stated. That is exactly what evolution is, an allegory that requires an explanation.
Truer words you've never twisted... and we were doing so well up until this point. Please tell me that you understand evolution is a scientific theory, and not an "allegory" for anything?
Care to stay on topic, and not derail this into another "evolution is a LIE! Nyah nyah nyah!" thread?
__________________ "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
I'm afraid I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around some of your logic, vossler. You seem to be saying here that the Hebrews were ambiguous about their cosmological views:
Originally Posted by vossler
The fact is we don't know what the ancient Hebrews were thinking.
Then you go on to say that the texts are "clear" and "concise" on the very origins issue we are debating:
I'm astonished that many Christians can't see these texts as being written clearly and concisely without ambiguity or lack of information.
While I agree that it is pretty "clear" that the Hebrews literally thought the earth was created in 6 days, that it was flat, that it was relatively young, etc., I don't think this is what God had intended we all believe. I understand this to be a simple framework from which the Lord told us of His power and love for us. He could have used any framework, from the dated cosmology of the early Jews to the more scientific framework we're familiar with today. You don't seem to be willing to want to traverse this thought process, however, because on this issue you just throw up your hands and say "I don't know" and default to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I'm arguing that, given a stunning amount of evidence to the contrary, your default should be set to an allegorical reading rather than a literal one.
Let me ask you something. If a text is being presented as historical why would you presume otherwise unless there was a prejudice against it.
Because:
1) The world (read: God's creation) is CLEARLY not young and exhibits MANY signs of history.
2) As you admitted previously, the Scriptures are NOT CLEARLY meant to be historical. You simply interpret them this way because you feel there is not enough biblical support to push you the other way. I think there is (again, given the talk of a four-cornered earth on pillars).
You assume that I'm prejudiced against the Bible, despite the clear evidence against the biblical cosmology presented in Genesis. I think the more obvious prejudice is the creationist prejudice against science because it isn't "direct", as you say -- that it doesn't support the fundamentalist cosmology of the Bible we've all been taught to believe since we were tykes in Sunday school. Old habits die hard.
Literal
I'm sorry to hear that. I pray that one day you will no longer have to deny reality in order to maintain your faith and accept the Lord. After all, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings" (Proverbs 25:2).
I was referring to your quote of Psalm 49. It didn’t seem to be all biblical and it didn’t reference the verses.
Specifically note verses 12 and 20 with regards to men that perish like the beats, without an understanding of God. Read the Snoke essay to get it in context: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF6-04Snoke.pdf
__________________ 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.
Why should it be? Many allegories are presented as a history. In fact, the only way we can know that an allegory isn't a history is not by reference to the text, but by reference to the outside world.
I could be mistaken but somehow the first story ever being told being presented as an allegory that not only requires an expert who has specific knowledge to interpret it, but typically an expert who doesn't believe in God, doesn't sound like a story God would tell. This same story is the one held by a majority of atheists/agnostics and yet a significant percentage of His children have a problem with it.
Don't you see something wrong with this picture?
Originally Posted by shernren
I once wrote a script for a high-school drama themed around science.
Quite an interesting story. So it is in your opinion that God did use a similar method to tell us about our origins. That's what is neat about forums such as this, we can all think and present our ideas freely.
Originally Posted by shernren
Did I lie to represent a thousand years as a few days? No. Why didn't I actually make those few days a thousand years, and the witch-doctor a few thousand intellectually-strangled clergymen, and write for a few million villagers, and name the scientist Newton? Because I was writing a drama designed to be delivered in five minutes, which (hopefully) would be memorable, and which would present the gist of the matter. And that drama won first place.
Congratulations!
Originally Posted by shernren
If even a lousy fallible human writer like me can pull off an allegorization like that while successfully communicating everything I intended to, how hard can it be for God?
It depends on how you measure success. If for the majority of history the majority of God's children misunderstood his allegory, then I'd be hard pressed to call that success.
Originally Posted by shernren
Remember, they couldn't even smelt metal.
This one keeps getting repeated and is quite fascinating. Since it's been repeated so often and used to show the lack of knowledge and abilities that the Israelites had, I'm at a loss why we even read any of their writings. Clearly they were a technologically challenged people who couldn't possibly be counted on as a source of truth or knowledge. Kind of reminds of how TEs see YECs, now there's an analogy I can live with.
__________________ 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'm afraid I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around some of your logic, vossler. You seem to be saying here that the Hebrews were ambiguous about their cosmological views:
Then you go on to say that the texts are "clear" and "concise" on the very origins issue we are debating:
I'm sorry for not being clear enough. Let me try it another way. What the Hebrews were actually thinking isn't clear to me, nor is it important. What is important is what God was and is saying to me. Whether the Hebrews understood the cosmological environment accurately has little to no bearing on anything. So the texts are clear and concise and that is what's important. I hope that my view in now clearer.
Originally Posted by Mallon
You don't seem to be willing to want to traverse this thought process, however, because on this issue you just throw up your hands and say "I don't know" and default to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I'm arguing that, given a stunning amount of evidence to the contrary, your default should be set to an allegorical reading rather than a literal one.
I don't ever throw up my hands and default to anything. I look at the text and if I can see another way of interpreting it without changing its contextual meaning I'm open to it. The stunning amount of evidence that you elude to isn't to me 1. very stunning and 2. is extremely limited.
Originally Posted by Mallon
1) The world (read: God's creation) is CLEARLY not young and exhibits MANY signs of history.
Clear to you, not to me.
Originally Posted by Mallon
2) As you admitted previously, the Scriptures are NOT CLEARLY meant to be historical.
I don't recall ever stating that. I may have said they are not always meant to be historical, but not what you're alluding to.
Originally Posted by Mallon
You simply interpret them this way because you feel there is not enough biblical support to push you the other way.
This isn't about what I feel, this is about what God's Word says. BTW, many, many, well known and respected pastors, apologists, theologians agree with the literal interpretation of Genesis.
Originally Posted by Mallon
You assume that I'm prejudiced against the Bible, despite the clear evidence against the biblical cosmology presented in Genesis.
No I see that you take scientific evidence and allow it to shape and form your views of the Bible, instead of the other way around.
Originally Posted by Mallon
I think the more obvious prejudice is the creationist prejudice against science because it isn't "direct", as you say -- that it doesn't support the fundamentalist cosmology of the Bible we've all been taught to believe since we were tykes in Sunday school. Old habits die hard.
I love science and the many discoveries that have come from that discipline. Where you and I seem to part is to what level scientific knowledge should be held.
Originally Posted by Mallon
I'm sorry to hear that. I pray that one day you will no longer have to deny reality in order to maintain your faith and accept the Lord. After all, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings" (Proverbs 25:2).
Just when I thought we were getting along.
__________________ 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."
fallible human writer like me can pull off an allegorization like that while successfully communicating everything I intended to, how hard can it be for God?
Linear Mode
