| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
4th November 2003, 01:25 PM
|  | Legend
61     
| | Join Date: 22nd October 2002 Location: New York
Posts: 14,600
Blessings: 1,013,605 My Mood 
Reps: 427,521,690,148,968,832 (power: 427,521,690,148,993) | | Originally Posted by Godzman Yes but Genesis is not written as a parable, it is true, Adam and Eve were real, I have my own opinions about creation, which is not anything but my opinions.
Genesis 2 is written as allegory. Genesis 1 is written as a takeoff on the Enuma Elish in order to falsify the Babylonian gods.
Since Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 contradict, both can't be true. Which are you putting your money on?
Adam and Eve are archetypes. They were not real nor do they need to be real for the theology to work.
__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890 |
4th November 2003, 01:29 PM
| | Veteran
 
| | Join Date: 19th September 2003
Posts: 1,726
Blessings: 110,861
Reps: 207 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by SacredLight Godzman is right.
Parables are written as metaphors, Genesis is written as history.
It certainly seems that way. Once again, this is probably how the writers of the scripture interpreted it. However, that doesn't mean God didn't *intend* it as a metaphor...something that a more advanced technological society might realize later on.
It isn't history just because *you say* it must be. Why not give us the theology that tells us that it *must* be history...and then we can debate that. |
4th November 2003, 01:30 PM
| | Legend
61
| | Join Date: 22nd October 2002 Location: New York
Posts: 14,600
Blessings: 1,013,605 My Mood
Reps: 427,521,690,148,968,832 (power: 427,521,690,148,993) | | Originally Posted by SacredLight Godzman is right.
Parables are written as metaphors, Genesis is written as history.
If Genesis 1 is written has history, then why do we have exactly 2 major creation events per day? History is never that neat and tidy.
Also, you are aware that the entire Torah was written to be sung, right? And that it is still sung every Sabbath in synagogues? Songs are not written as prose history, either. They may depict history, but they are not written as history. The "morning and evening" that is so prominent in Genesis 1 is there partly to keep the meter in Hebrew.
I haven't even gotten into the numerology of Genesis 1. Literal history is not written to correspond to the numbers.
__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890 |
4th November 2003, 01:33 PM
| | Legend
61
| | Join Date: 22nd October 2002 Location: New York
Posts: 14,600
Blessings: 1,013,605 My Mood
Reps: 427,521,690,148,968,832 (power: 427,521,690,148,993) | | Originally Posted by Mike Flynn It certainly seems that way. Once again, this is probably how the writers of the scripture interpreted it.
I don't think Genesis 1 was ever intended as literal history. Instead, IMO it was always intended as a theological essay and intended to show the Babylonian gods to be false. I don't think the authors thought the Enuma Elish was history. Yet they faithfully used that framework in order to destroy the Babylonian gods in order of their appearance in the Enuma Elish. That's why we have plants created before the sun. Marduk is the god of agriculture and agricultural plants. His younger sister is the sun goddess. So Marduk is destroyed first by having Yahweh create plants. Then the younger sisters are destroyed by having Yahweh create the sun and moon.
You can't be a god if what you are god of is made by another deity.
__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890 |
4th November 2003, 01:39 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
29 
 | | Join Date: 27th July 2003 Location: Apopka, Florida
Posts: 3,393
Blessings: 130,785
Reps: 2,759 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Godzman 
that is silly, you weren't around when the world was made, so you believe science, which only sees through a limited scope, it takes faith in God, to believe the bible, and yes I am afraid, that if religion was false, then why do people worship science, worship man, worship sports, worship their car, people have a nature, where does this nature to worship come from???
So one day you find me hovering over a dead body. I'm drenched in blood, smoking gun in my hand, and chanting "Kill kill kill kill...".
Going by your logic there is no way to prove that I killed them since nobody saw it.
Going by a sane person's logic they'd gather every bit of evidence to recreate how, when, where, etc the murder took place. |
4th November 2003, 01:46 PM
| | Legend
61
| | Join Date: 22nd October 2002 Location: New York
Posts: 14,600
Blessings: 1,013,605 My Mood
Reps: 427,521,690,148,968,832 (power: 427,521,690,148,993) | | Originally Posted by Godzman
that is silly, you weren't around when the world was made, so you believe science, which only sees through a limited scope,
1. You weren't around to see the global flood, yet creationists tell you that you can look at the layers of rock and tell that they were deposited by a global flood. You don't see a contradiction here?
2. Who created the physical universe that science studies? Don't you believe that God created it? Then isn't science studying God? You are asking us not to believe in God?
it takes faith in God, to believe the bible,
But we are not arguing against the Bible, but in your human interpretation of the Bible. You aren't God. So your interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily how God intended and wants you to read the Bible.
And I also am afraid. That people will follow those like you that worship your interpretation of the Bible and not God.
why do people worship science, worship man, worship sports, worship their car, people have a nature, where does this nature to worship come from???
Good question. I don't have a good answer right now. It shouldn't come from God, because in neither Genesis creation story are people created to worship God. People are created for their own sakes, not to worship God. Nowhere does it say God put a desire to worship into humans.
__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890 |
4th November 2003, 02:13 PM
|  | Peace
29  
| | Join Date: 8th September 2003 Location: Central Bible College
Posts: 2,553
Blessings: 101,467
Reps: 14,478 (power: 26) | | Originally Posted by lucaspa 1. You weren't around to see the global flood, yet creationists tell you that you can look at the layers of rock and tell that they were deposited by a global flood. You don't see a contradiction here?
2. Who created the physical universe that science studies? Don't you believe that God created it? Then isn't science studying God? You are asking us not to believe in God?
But we are not arguing against the Bible, but in your human interpretation of the Bible. You aren't God. So your interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily how God intended and wants you to read the Bible.
And I also am afraid. That people will follow those like you that worship your interpretation of the Bible and not God.
Good question. I don't have a good answer right now. It shouldn't come from God, because in neither Genesis creation story are people created to worship God. People are created for their own sakes, not to worship God. Nowhere does it say God put a desire to worship into humans.
well that desire is there, duh.
But anyway, you are thinking I agree with YEC on everything, well I don't and I am not a YEC, but they are right to take the bible literal and not to make it allegorical because allegory can be used to justify all kinds of horrendus things
__________________
Live as though Christ died yesterday, rose from the grave today, and is coming back tomorrow.
--Theodore Epp
The safest place to be is within the will of God.
--Unknown
You do well to believe in God. Satan also believes...and trembles.
--James 2:19
How else but through a broken heart may Lord Christ enter in
--Oscar Wilde |
4th November 2003, 02:35 PM
|  | WinAce > cdesign proponentsists
33  
| | Join Date: 24th June 2003 Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,443
Blessings: 145,835
Reps: 16,712 (power: 44) | | Originally Posted by Godzman well that desire is there, duh.
But anyway, you are thinking I agree with YEC on everything, well I don't and I am not a YEC, but they are right to take the bible literal and not to make it allegorical because allegory can be used to justify all kinds of horrendus things
that's why it contains such wonderful concepts as being able to tell the righteous by their fruit.
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging. |
4th November 2003, 02:47 PM
|  | Teleologist
27
| | Join Date: 1st August 2003 Location: Florida
Posts: 2,287
Blessings: 78,662
Reps: 1,320 (power: 13) | | Originally Posted by Godzman well that desire is there, duh.
But anyway, you are thinking I agree with YEC on everything, well I don't and I am not a YEC, but they are right to take the bible literal and not to make it allegorical because allegory can be used to justify all kinds of horrendus things
Those who take the Bible as allegorical also know that it is not a book of hard-oak Christian laws. There would be no reason to manipulate non-divine texts so as to make a point. Rather, they just take the jist of Jesus' message: Love one another, and forgive to be forgiven. So long as you produce these fruits, your doing the will of the Father. Going by the thousands of laws the Bible institutes is a needless hassle.
__________________
|
4th November 2003, 02:57 PM
| | Veteran
| | Join Date: 19th September 2003
Posts: 1,726
Blessings: 110,861
Reps: 207 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Godzman But anyway, you are thinking I agree with YEC on everything, well I don't and I am not a YEC, but they are right to take the bible literal and not to make it allegorical because allegory can be used to justify all kinds of horrendus things
Why don't you give us some examples, then? I think you've got your history mixed up.
Ironically, a quick look at church history will tell you that the *reverse* is clearly true.
It has *consistently* been the binding literalists who have used the Bible to justify some of the *darkest chapters* in human history. Is this the tradition that you are defending? Read your Bible...how does Jesus respond to the pharisees, staunch literalists in their day? Is binding literalism today any different?
Just take an objective look at the fruits of your efforts. By binding Christians to literal interpretations you would cause huge numbers of people who may otherwise have accepted Christ to stumble. Is that good fruit?
The metaphorical interpretation allows non-Christians to enter the faith without attaching strings to the science. Science is *not* sinful. Throwing down stumbling blocks in front of a brother or sister certainly is.
I am not accusing you of anything personally Godzman...you clearly have your convictions and I respect that. I'm just not sure why you think its so important to defend literalism...it just doesn't seem to bear any good fruit.  | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
