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.
This is very good!
There's a lot of hope for you, I believe the Holy Spirit still has a chance to show you the truth. Trust Him and no one else to reveal the truth to you. You're post is very encouraging to read. Thanks!
Thank you - well, I do keep asking God to show me the truth of it all, and how to approach it.
Even then, of course, I know it wouldnt be foolproof, as one also has to understand the culture etc etc. Look at the bit about camels going through the eye of a needle...I always thought that was a bit of a strange thing for Jesus to say - I had mental visions of someone trying to force a camel through that little tiny hole..boggled the mind. Then of course, I heard about the narrow gateways through the city walls, being termed eyes of needles, and it was apparently tricky to get laden camels through them. Suddenly it made perfect sense.
Going a little off-topic (not really if we are talking of literal vs. non-literal interpretation), but I had to chuckle over this. Maybe it is because I was an English teacher, but I never had a problem with Jesus saying this. I think he meant for you to have mental visions of someone trying to force a camel through the eye of a sewing needle---and to find it very funny!
In literature class we call this type of saying "hyperbole"--a deliberate use of gross exaggeration for (usually humorous) effect. Jesus was a master of hyperbole. After all, he also spoke about logs getting stuck in your eye.
To me, it makes Jesus statement pointless if it is about narrow gates in walls. I've heard that story before, but I have never found anyone who could verify that city gates were actually given that name. To me it sounds too artificial, like a story made up centuries later by a sourpuss with no poetry in their soul.
I could be wrong of course. My real question is why people have such different reactions to these possibilities. You say you thought it was a strange thing for Jesus to say even before you heard about gates--and the gates made sense to you. But to me, it wasn't strange at all; it's a good, witty line and makes perfect sense as it reads. And because it always made sense to me as written, not only did I not look for another meaning, I found the gate meaning unattractive.
How do other people feel? What is it that makes people comfortable or uncomfortable with a hyperbolic image? Is it that we were raised differently--or are people's brains really wired differently?
__________________ 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
Going a little off-topic (not really if we are talking of literal vs. non-literal interpretation), but I had to chuckle over this. Maybe it is because I was an English teacher, but I never had a problem with Jesus saying this. I think he meant for you to have mental visions of someone trying to force a camel through the eye of a sewing needle---and to find it very funny!
In literature class we call this type of saying "hyperbole"--a deliberate use of gross exaggeration for (usually humorous) effect. Jesus was a master of hyperbole. After all, he also spoke about logs getting stuck in your eye.
To me, it makes Jesus statement pointless if it is about narrow gates in walls. I've heard that story before, but I have never found anyone who could verify that city gates were actually given that name. To me it sounds too artificial, like a story made up centuries later by a sourpuss with no poetry in their soul.
I could be wrong of course. My real question is why people have such different reactions to these possibilities. You say you thought it was a strange thing for Jesus to say even before you heard about gates--and the gates made sense to you. But to me, it wasn't strange at all; it's a good, witty line and makes perfect sense as it reads. And because it always made sense to me as written, not only did I not look for another meaning, I found the gate meaning unattractive.
How do other people feel? What is it that makes people comfortable or uncomfortable with a hyperbolic image? Is it that we were raised differently--or are people's brains really wired differently?
Thats very interestibg what you've said there - I think it's just that people have diffeent seneses of humour...what one person finds funny, leaves another person cold.
Other people have said to me that they find stuff like the plank in the eye funny...but I've never seen it that way...I've just seen things like that as a clever and pointed statement that clearly conveys what Jesus meant.
That's not to say that I haven't found things in the Bible hilarious...it's often just not the same things that other people find funny. Maybe it's just the way different people's minds work. I've even nearly not been able to stop myself from laughing aloud at certain things in the Anglican liturgy, because something might conjure up certain pictures in my mind. The vicar eventually caught on to my sense of humour
Thats very interestibg what you've said there - I think it's just that people have diffeent seneses of humour...what one person finds funny, leaves another person cold.
Other people have said to me that they find stuff like the plank in the eye funny...but I've never seen it that way...I've just seen things like that as a clever and pointed statement that clearly conveys what Jesus meant.
Yet you didn't find the camel through the needle's eye a clever and pointed statement that clearly conveys what Jesus meant. To me that is very curious.
Maybe it's just the way different people's minds work.
Yes, that is what I am interested in. Especially when it's not just a sense of humour, but something that has serious consequences.
__________________ 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
Thank you for your reply. Now that is interesting about the translations of words....if ONLY one could read and understand the Bible in the original languages..it might help clear up a lot of misunderstandings.
If you are running windows 95 or higher then e-sword is a really useful resource, e-Sword - the Sword of the LORD with an electronic edge You can look up the Hebrew or Greek word uses in a verse with Strong's numbers and search for other occurrences of the word elsewhere in the bible. It comes with Hebrew and Greek dictionaries too. But as you say there is more to it than just the words used, there is grammar and as you point out, culture too. And words can have different meanings in different contexts. But it does help.
Even then, of course, I know it wouldnt be foolproof, as one also has to understand the culture etc etc. Look at the bit about camels going through the eye of a needle...I always thought that was a bit of a strange thing for Jesus to say - I had mental visions of someone trying to force a camel through that little tiny hole..boggled the mind. Then of course, I heard about the narrow gateways through the city walls, being termed eyes of needles, and it was apparently tricky to get laden camels through them. Suddenly it made perfect sense.
Personally I have to say I prefer the mind boggling version. Jesus had a wonderful way with words, bizarre at times, just think of trying to take a speck out of your brother's eye with a log sticking out of your own, or the Pharisees straining at gnats and swallowing a camel. (I see glaudys got there ahead of me )
The trouble is, if ever I'm in a discussion with a non-believer about Christianity, and it ends up getting onto Genesis, I find myself floundering, saying well, soem Christians say this, and some say that...and finding I haven't got any solid basis on which to proceed. I really need to think of a way of approaching it, which does justice to the whole thing.
Did you catch the program on BBC recently 'Did Darwin Kill God?' It gives a really good overview of the history of interpretation of Genesis in the church and the relationship between Christianity and science down through the ages. You can still catch it on YouTube
I think it is worth pointing out that while you do get people who take Genesis literally, long before modern geology and evolution you have really important scripture scholars and theologians like Origen, Augustine Anslem and Aquinas who realised from the text of Genesis itself that the account was not meant to be taken literally. Even in the bible itself, the days of Genesis are not taken literally, look at Psalm 90 or Hebrew 3&4.
Th e thing is, I really think that Genesis is integral to the whole bible, and in particular, to the gospel. I need to know how to give cogent biblical answers (or pointers) at least, to agnostics who believe in evolution, and those who haven't really thought about it - but all without losing the integrity of Scripture, or maybe my own integrity.
This is more a question of Gen 2&3 rather than Gen 1 and as I have said a lot of TEs believe in a historical Adam, and nothing in the account of the fall in Gen 3 depends on the description of Adam's creation in Gen 2 being literal. Adam does not even have to be the first human being or have all human race descended from him. A lot of people see Adam as 'federal head' of the human race, and that this was why his fall affected us all. That and the fact we all sinned too. The relationship does not have to be biological.
But personally, I don't think the issue is with the biblical descriptions of the gospel, but rather traditional attempts to construct a systematic theology dating back to Augustine, which explained the gospel in terms of redemption from an 'Original Sin' passed down through the human race from Adam. But the bible never talks of Original Sin, it says Jesus redeemed us from our own sins, not Adam's. Nor does the bible blame our sinful natures on the fall of Adam. It is all theological speculation. But that is me. Like I said, there are plenty of TEs who have not problem with a literal historical Adam and Eve who committed the first ever sin and messed things up for the whole human race.
I can't solemnly state that one or the other position is correct, if I am not sure myself....but then I find myself getting bogged down with difficulties in either camp, as it were.
Who ever said following Jesus was easy Well Jesus I suppose, the bit about come to me all who are weary and heavily laden ((Amen Lord) Sorry a bit of a digression there, I needed that.) But it isn't easy being a disciple, scripture is not easy to understand and we only see through a glass darkly. But whatever the theological difficulties being a YEC or a TE, the fact is the earth is billions of years old and life on earth has evolved. There is no point in hanging on to an interpretation of scripture that is simply wrong. We learned that centuries ago when science showed us the earth went round the sun and the traditional geocentric interpretations, however simpler exegetically, were wrong. If the interpretation is wrong, the only thing you can do is find a better one.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Assyrian; 30th April 2009 at 09:14 AM.
Yet you didn't find the camel through the needle's eye a clever and pointed statement that clearly conveys what Jesus meant. To me that is very curious.
No, I didn't mean that....I just meant I didn't see any humour in it.
Yes, that is what I am interested in. Especially when it's not just a sense of humour, but something that has serious consequences
Yes, of course...if something has serious consequences, then it does matter how people understand or per ceive things
If you are running windows 95 or higher then e-sword is a really useful resource, e-Sword - the Sword of the LORD with an electronic edge You can look up the Hebrew or Greek word uses in a verse with Strong's numbers and search for other occurrences of the word elsewhere in the bible. It comes with Hebrew and Greek dictionaries too. But as you say there is more to it than just the words used, there is grammar and as you point out, culture too. And words can have different meanings in different contexts. But it does help.
Sorry, this computer's playing up...having difficulty in doing the quote thingy, therefore am replying in colour.
Thanks for that link, looks like it would be really useful.
It's interesting, brcuse sometimes I 've perceived a certin meaning from a bit of scripture which a lot of people have understood differently, and then I've read somewhere, that actually it can be translated a bit differently..and the alternative translation has matched up with what I have perceived as the spirit of the scripture. (Mind you, someitmes it works the other way...it's me who has not understood it)
Personally I have to say I prefer the mind boggling version. Jesus had a wonderful way with words, bizarre at times, just think of trying to take a speck out of your brother's eye with a log sticking out of your own, or the Pharisees straining at gnats and swallowing a camel. (I see glaudys got there ahead of me )
I agree with you as regards Jesus's way with words...howver, I'm afraid I've never seen any humour in them, like other people do, but maybeif one had ben there, when He delivered those words, then his manner of delivery woulod have conveyed humour. He always comes over as very dead-pan to me when his words are recorded...but that's of course, because scripture doesnt say (usually) that he said something cheekily, or laughingly or whatever, as a novel might.
Did you catch the program on BBC recently 'Did Darwin Kill God?' It gives a really good overview of the history of interpretation of Genesis in the church and the relationship between Christianity and science down through the ages. You can still catch it on YouTube
No, I didnt see that - thanks for the link...I'll have to watch it
I think it is worth pointing out that while you do get people who take Genesis literally, long before modern geology and evolution you have really important scripture scholars and theologians like Origen, Augustine Anslem and Aquinas who realised from the text of Genesis itself that the account was not meant to be taken literally. Even in the bible itself, the days of Genesis are not taken literally, look at Psalm 90 or Hebrew 3&4.
That's interesting, I didnt know that..but then I havent studied those people....I really ought to read some of their stuff.
This is more a question of Gen 2&3 rather than Gen 1 and as I have said a lot of TEs believe in a historical Adam, and nothing in the account of the fall in Gen 3 depends on the description of Adam's creation in Gen 2 being literal. Adam does not even have to be the first human being or have all human race descended from him. A lot of people see Adam as 'federal head' of the human race, and that this was why his fall affected us all. That and the fact we all sinned too. The relationship does not have to be biological.
I see what you're saying, but (and i cant remember the scripture exactly), doesnt it say somewhere, that as in one man (Adam) all have sinned, in one man (the last Adam), so all have been redeemed? Which SEEMS to imply that sin started off with one man, and we have inherited that tendency....but I'm sure that's open to interpretation.
But personally, I don't think the issue is with the biblical descriptions of the gospel, but rather traditional attempts to construct a systematic theology dating back to Augustine, which explained the gospel in terms of redemption from an 'Original Sin' passed down through the human race from Adam. But the bible never talks of Original Sin, it says Jesus redeemed us from our own sins, not Adam's. Nor does the bible blame our sinful natures on the fall of Adam. It is all theological speculation. But that is me. Like I said, there are plenty of TEs who have not problem with a literal historical Adam and Eve who committed the first ever sin and messed things up for the whole human race.
Oops, my above comment was meant to relate to this bit
Who ever said following Jesus was easy Well Jesus I suppose, the bit about come to me all who are weary and heavily laden ((Amen Lord) Sorry a bit of a digression there, I needed that.) But it isn't easy being a disciple, scripture is not easy to understand and we only see through a glass darkly. But whatever the theological difficulties being a YEC or a TE, the fact is the earth is billions of years old and life on earth has evolved. There is no point in hanging on to an interpretation of scripture that is simply wrong. We learned that centuries ago when science showed us the earth went round the sun and the traditional geocentric interpretations, however simpler exegetically, were wrong. If the interpretation is wrong, the only thing you can do is find a better one.
And this is the difficulty of course...to find a true interpretation (not necessarily word for word, and coves all bases, but one that doesn't take away from God's message or truth)
To me, it makes Jesus statement pointless if it is about narrow gates in walls. I've heard that story before, but I have never found anyone who could verify that city gates were actually given that name. To me it sounds too artificial, like a story made up centuries later by a sourpuss with no poetry in their soul.
I agree. Besides it kind of raises two questions:
1) Weren't the city planners expecting they'd get deliveries of cargo? Wouldn't the gates have been built large enough?
2) Isn't the meaning ultimately pretty much the same - if you have cargo and have to unload it, you'd have been better not having it to begin with. Travel light through this life.
And this is the difficulty of course...to find a true interpretation (not necessarily word for word, and coves all bases, but one that doesn't take away from God's message or truth)
I think there are two factors at work here, there are our own human limitations, the fact that God's ways are far higher than ours, his thoughts higher than our thoughts, and until we meet him face to face, though we learn his way, until we meet him face to face we will always see through a glass darkly. On the other hand we have the Spirit of God, and his Word is living and active. I have heard too many sermons where the speaker messes up the the exegesis of the text or massacres the Greek, yet speaks the wisdom and grace of God right into my heart. God's word is bigger than our mistakes. I have heard creationists preaching form Genesis and as long as they are preaching scripture rather than creation science I have been blessed. God's word cuts deeper than our misunderstandings.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
People seem to keep saying things like Creationists can only reject evolution because they see the genesis account as being literal. Conversely, theistic evolutionists accept evolution, because they see Genesis as being mythical or non-literal.
But can't there be an inbetween position? (not that I myself can figure any of it out properly)
What if Genesis was literal in a broad sense, or in some specifics, but used analogies or metaphors in other ways?
For example (and I'm certainly not saying this is a correct interpretation...I can't be dogmatic about any of it)...it says that God place A an E in the Garden of Eden and they could eat from any of the trees, apart from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Well, what if all the trees were literal APART from the Tree of the Knoledge of G and E?
What about the Tree of Life? Was that literal?
Also, people say, well of course a snake can't talk...but then, neither can a donkey, and yet a donkey speaks later on in the Bible..to Balaam, if I remember correctly? Now, I believe that the incident with Balaam and the donkey was an actual literal happening....EXCEPT that I suspect that the donkey didn't actually use his vocal chords to speak...I suspect that God somehow spoke through him (aloud). So, I think t's entirely possible, that Satan could have used a serpent in the same way..not that the serpent actually started chatting away, withou t a muth designed to speak.
Not that any of this proves or disproves evolution...but I do wonder if we keep getting hung up on EITHER an absolute literal interpretatio n of Genesis, OR an entirely mythical or allegorical interpretation.
And really, I suspect the whole truth does not lie in either of those positions. I really think there's an awful lot more behind Genesis than meets the eye, which none of us has knowledge of...it only gives us a basic framework.
Or one could reject macroevolution as being an unprovable hypothesis about things that only God can know about. The evidence is degraded, incomplete and misread. Highly gifted professional scientists apply advanced techniques in a guessing game which carries no more than the authority of speculation.
Regarding Genesis those closest to the original languages and time quite definitely interpreted it as a literal account. The only reason we really question is that the rise of modern scientific theories relating to the age of the Earth and the processes by which life developed into its present state.
The flood account described a global flood which wiped all but Noah and his family and the subsequent table of the nations refers to these ancestors as the progenitors of the nations that spread across the world.
Also there is a level of dishonesty in many TEs in their reading of the Genesis 1 to 10 chapters. They will accept a literal truth like God created everything , that he created out of nothing but not that he did it in 6 days or that there was an historical Adam and Eve from whom all mankind are descended.
Having said all the above there is poetry interwoven with facts in this account. I find the straight forward interpretation of something is usually the safest however. If on judgment day God turns round and says hey I was only joking in Genesis then I am going to need to rethink my entire sense of humour methinks.
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
)
Well Jesus I suppose, the bit about come to me all who are weary and heavily laden ((Amen Lord) Sorry a bit of a digression there, I needed that.) But it isn't easy being a disciple, scripture is not easy to understand and we only see through a glass darkly. But whatever the theological difficulties being a YEC or a TE, the fact is the earth is billions of years old and life on earth has evolved. There is no point in hanging on to an interpretation of scripture that is simply wrong. We learned that centuries ago when science showed us the earth went round the sun and the traditional geocentric interpretations, however simpler exegetically, were wrong. If the interpretation is wrong, the only thing you can do is find a better one. 
Linear Mode
