| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |  | | 
12th June 2009, 08:08 AM
|  | Deut 6:4 28  | | Join Date: 19th May 2005 Location: McAllen, Texas
Posts: 1,005
Blessings: 172,815
Reps: 70,027,930,524,366,400 (power: 70,027,930,524,374) | | | Examining Genesis... TEs argue that not all of Genesis is meant to be taken literally. How does one know which parts of Genesis to take literally and which parts to take figuratively? Where in Genesis does the metaphorical passages end and the literal passages begin? | 
12th June 2009, 09:30 AM
|  | Legend
 | | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,849
Blessings: 61,096
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan TEs argue that not all of Genesis is meant to be taken literally. How does one know which parts of Genesis to take literally and which parts to take figuratively? Where in Genesis does the metaphorical passages end and the literal passages begin?
Everywhere.
__________________ "Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert | 
12th June 2009, 09:43 AM
|  | Newbie
 | | Join Date: 7th May 2009
Posts: 114
Blessings: 66,701
Reps: 83,980,069 (power: 83,983) | | Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan TEs argue that not all of Genesis is meant to be taken literally. How does one know which parts of Genesis to take literally and which parts to take figuratively? Where in Genesis does the metaphorical passages end and the literal passages begin? Well, If you believe god created the universe you can take it all literal. God created the universe. Today we know how, back then, they did not. God created man. The Church Fathers made the creation story short to try and help later generations see that the bible is not the book for studying creation, but rather a book to be studied for the improvement of one’s treatment of their fellow man. The RC never intended for Luther to come along and change the bible to the sole source of God’s word. How could they anticipate that event, never in anybody’s right mind, could they think that god does not speak to us in many ways. Noah’s flood happened, it just did not cover the surface of planet Earth. Like the Mississippi flood in the USA, to a smaller population living along the river it would have seemed that the whole world flooded. Add that to the practices of passing stories down through word of mouth one can easily see why the story is what it is. The similarities in the stories around the world can be understood best when you understand that people’s of that time lived by rivers. Water ways were the primary transportation mechanism for many people of that time. Many rivers flood, many people lived through various flood, all the rivers have big floods at one point or another. Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that were around for a long time, and then one day, or through a series of events, were destroyed. You may believe in these events to be from god or not. The fact remains they were destroyed. The Bible purpose really picks up at Cane&Able. It shows us how we can treat each other if we lose focus on God. It tries and teaches us how to be more “Human”. Jesus said, give the Roman’s what is Roman, well give science what is science. Science tells us how god did it. The main purpose of the bible is not science, math, or even cooking. The purpose of the bible answer’s those age old questions “who am I” “what are we”. From loving compassionate people to daughters that rape their father, we are it all. Also it teaches us how to treat each other. Weather you believe or not, the main question after the reading of the bible is ‘what does it mean to you?” and then “How can we help each other to be better people”. | 
12th June 2009, 10:21 AM
|  | Senior Veteran 29 
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,526
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan TEs argue that not all of Genesis is meant to be taken literally. How does one know which parts of Genesis to take literally and which parts to take figuratively? Where in Genesis does the metaphorical passages end and the literal passages begin?
Neocreationists don't take all of Genesis literally, either, so you had might as well ask them the same thing.
__________________ "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood | 
13th June 2009, 09:35 AM
|  | you are not reading this. 24  | | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,357 My Mood
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | | Origen knew how. 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]
__________________ 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]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw, To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
| 
13th June 2009, 09:54 AM
|  | Deut 6:4 28  | | Join Date: 19th May 2005 Location: McAllen, Texas
Posts: 1,005
Blessings: 172,815
Reps: 70,027,930,524,366,400 (power: 70,027,930,524,374) | | Originally Posted by gluadys Everywhere.
Care to elaborate? | 
13th June 2009, 09:55 AM
|  | Deut 6:4 28  | | Join Date: 19th May 2005 Location: McAllen, Texas
Posts: 1,005
Blessings: 172,815
Reps: 70,027,930,524,366,400 (power: 70,027,930,524,374) | | Originally Posted by An Arch Angel Well, If you believe god created the universe you can take it all literal. God created the universe. Today we know how, back then, they did not. God created man. The Church Fathers made the creation story short to try and help later generations see that the bible is not the book for studying creation, but rather a book to be studied for the improvement of one’s treatment of their fellow man. The RC never intended for Luther to come along and change the bible to the sole source of God’s word. How could they anticipate that event, never in anybody’s right mind, could they think that god does not speak to us in many ways. Noah’s flood happened, it just did not cover the surface of planet Earth. Like the Mississippi flood in the USA, to a smaller population living along the river it would have seemed that the whole world flooded. Add that to the practices of passing stories down through word of mouth one can easily see why the story is what it is. The similarities in the stories around the world can be understood best when you understand that people’s of that time lived by rivers. Water ways were the primary transportation mechanism for many people of that time. Many rivers flood, many people lived through various flood, all the rivers have big floods at one point or another. Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that were around for a long time, and then one day, or through a series of events, were destroyed. You may believe in these events to be from god or not. The fact remains they were destroyed. The Bible purpose really picks up at Cane&Able. It shows us how we can treat each other if we lose focus on God. It tries and teaches us how to be more “Human”. Jesus said, give the Roman’s what is Roman, well give science what is science. Science tells us how god did it. The main purpose of the bible is not science, math, or even cooking. The purpose of the bible answer’s those age old questions “who am I” “what are we”. From loving compassionate people to daughters that rape their father, we are it all. Also it teaches us how to treat each other. Weather you believe or not, the main question after the reading of the bible is ‘what does it mean to you?” and then “How can we help each other to be better people”.
That's great and all, but you didn't even answer the question. You just gave your viewpoint which didn't answer the question whatsoever. | 
13th June 2009, 09:58 AM
|  | Deut 6:4 28  | | Join Date: 19th May 2005 Location: McAllen, Texas
Posts: 1,005
Blessings: 172,815
Reps: 70,027,930,524,366,400 (power: 70,027,930,524,374) | | Originally Posted by Mallon Neocreationists don't take all of Genesis literally, either, so you had might as well ask them the same thing.
If you don't want to answer the question, then why even respond? I mean, was there something wrong with my question or how I asked it? | 
13th June 2009, 10:00 AM
|  | Deut 6:4 28  | | Join Date: 19th May 2005 Location: McAllen, Texas
Posts: 1,005
Blessings: 172,815
Reps: 70,027,930,524,366,400 (power: 70,027,930,524,374) | | Originally Posted by shernren Origen knew how. 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]
This is an answer to some other question. Not mine. A lot of dodging going on around here. | 
13th June 2009, 11:12 AM
|  | Senior Veteran 29 
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,526
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by ToxicReboMan If you don't want to answer the question, then why even respond? I mean, was there something wrong with my question or how I asked it?
Yes. Your question supposes that evolutionary creationists are the only ones who don't read Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. We aren't. NO Christian reads Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. So your question should be directed, not at evolutionary creationists specifically, but at Christians as a whole (including yourself!).
Where do you draw the line between scientific concordism and accommodationism in Genesis, ToxicReboMan? Many evolutionary creationists I know would argue that Genesis 1-11 should be understood in the context of an accommodationist framework, with history phased in throughout.
__________________ "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood
Last edited by Mallon; 13th June 2009 at 11:19 AM.
|  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode | | | |