Creation Or Evolution?

[Melethiel]

Allegorical interpretations are a new phenomonon

Other way around. Purely literal readings are a product of the Enlightenment.

 

[Splayd]

Oh I see the confusion. I worded that poorly. I'm not sure it's going to make much difference for some but let me clarify - the understanding that Genesis should be interpreted as allegorical is a new phenomonon.

I appreciate that allegorical writing is nothing new. I recognise that it's used in Hebrew writings, but the traditional Jewish interpretation of Torah has always included a literal understanding, albeit with more wiggle room than many fundamentals would allow today.

 

[jds1977]

Are you trying to say that these are inferior ways of communicating truth--even when they are inspired?

Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Nice try.

We are agreed that the passage is narrative, but that doesn't necessarily qualify it as historical narrative. That is a claim that has yet to be justified.

A non-historical narrative in the bible will not include geneology details or geographic details as much as a historical narrative. It is a means of establishing credibility to the author to include these details. Gen. is abundant with these. Also, in the bible, if it were meant to be taken as non-literal, you would have either the story-teller, receiver and an interpretation. This is consistent throughout scripture given the exception of some of the parables in mat. 13 but it was followed by a single interpretation towards the end of the chapter. Non-historical narratives are usually followed by an interpretation. In the case of Gen 1-3, there is no evidence of any of the characters mentioned, interpreted as being symbolic. It also contains elements of Hebrew prose and not poetry such as: sepeartion of events in clear sequential order, the use of waw consecutive w/ the verb to describe sequential events. And, the geneologies of Gen.1-11 continue right up to Abraham's geneologic account. So, these geneologies are foundational to Abraham. Then, factor in all of the supporting verses of this passage as being historical, and it's pretty evident.

I still don't see the reason for placing this limitation on God.

By saying God did not form man from dust seems to put more limitation on God and His word.

If God only created in the beginning, do you then agree that God did not create you?

God created all physical matter in the beginning as well as man/woman. Physical matter is no longer created but formed. However, do you believe your spirit has always existed? Or did He create that part of you in your mother's womb?

What work do you think God was doing? Is there any reason it could not include creation? Why could God's work not include natural processes?

You need to read the rest of the chapter...His work included healing, giving life and being judge...

John 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
So, unless natural processes means: turning water into wine, making the blind see, making the lame walk, raising dead, redeeming mankind by His death on the cross and resurrection, becoming our advocate and judge of all things...Then no.​

 

[jds1977]

If Oliver Twist is written as a narrative but is not meant to be take literally, does that make Charles Dickens a liar?

Did Charles Dickens claim inspiration of God?

 

[jds1977]

"Create" also doesn't mean "form a zygote and let it grow." Therefore, according to your logic, God did not create you.

Interestingly, the Greek word ktizo can mean "to form" or shape. I ask this question...where did your spirit come from?

 

[mumluvsherboys]

I have spent more time reading and answering in this endless argument than I have in worshipping God. This argument in my opinion is fruitless. The only thing this gains is that one person is calling the other wrong and vice versa. In fact, all this is doing is bringin stress into my life as I am sure it does for others. What difference does it make? All this time we have all spent has not been to glorify God. You can argue that it is, but if you read back very few posts about evolution contain anything that glorify God and his wonders. I challenge you all to remember that we are all part of the body of Christ when posting regardless of where and how we believe we originate. And that this seperation is just another ploy of Satan. He is slick, so be careful who you are serving when making a point. Remember we are all in this crazy world together fighting the good fight. Everything from our lips should be to serve God and glorify Him in one way or another. If we spend more time in worship then arguing we would not be as fruitless as we can be. Anyway, I know I am being bold, but I think it needs to be said. I am just as guilty. I pray you all have a lovely day and may God bless you and yours!

 

[Xaero]

Did god create (bara) the smith ex nihilo? (Isa 54:16)

"Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy."

 

[mumluvsherboys]

Did god create (bara) the smith ex nihilo? (Isa 54:16)

"Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy."

 

[Xaero]

God said he created the smith, so did the smith suddenly pop out of nothing, or what?

 

[Jadis40]

I had to vote something else.

1. I don't believe in a literal, 24-hour, 6 day creation event and a 6000 year old earth.
I take this view simply because of the mountains of scientific evidence in the fields of geology, astronomy, etc. that overwhelmingly point to a 13.5 billion year old universe and a 4.6 billion year old solar system, including our earth.

I still need to make it clear that I still believe firmly that God created the universe, I just accept that it was done through the Big Bang.

 

[gluadys]

Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Nice try.

No, just trying to understand why you would demean a form of literature often used in the bible as if it somehow didn't "measure up" to more narrative and historical literature.

A non-historical narrative in the bible will not include geneology details or geographic details as much as a historical narrative.

Well, now we need to define the portion of Genesis we are dealing with. I don't think anyone claims that all of Genesis lies outside of historical narrative. OTOH, genealogies and geographical details are often part of fiction as well--even when they refer to actual people and places--as they provide verisimilitude to the narrative.

Also, in the bible, if it were meant to be taken as non-literal, you would have either the story-teller, receiver and an interpretation. This is consistent throughout scripture given the exception of some of the parables in mat. 13 but it was followed by a single interpretation towards the end of the chapter. Non-historical narratives are usually followed by an interpretation.

Making up more rules? Even if you are right, any teacher of language and literature can affirm that there are always exceptions to the rule.

In the case of Gen 1-3, there is no evidence of any of the characters mentioned, interpreted as being symbolic. It also contains elements of Hebrew prose and not poetry such as: sepeartion of events in clear sequential order, the use of waw consecutive w/ the verb to describe sequential events.

As noted, these support the identification of the passage as narrative. But that is insufficient to support it as literal history.

And, the geneologies of Gen.1-11 continue right up to Abraham's geneologic account. So, these geneologies are foundational to Abraham.

I don't know what you mean by foundational in this context.

Then, factor in all of the supporting verses of this passage as being historical, and it's pretty evident.

I don't know of any such verses. If you are speaking of NT references to Genesis, they do not indicate whether or not the speaker was referring to history or story. (In fact this distinction probably did not exist at the time.) The point of the reference lies elsewhere e.g. Jesus' comment on marriage. And that point is valid whether or not the story is also history.

By saying God did not form man from dust seems to put more limitation on God and His word.

Well, I am not saying that. To me, evolution describes how God formed man from dust.

God created all physical matter in the beginning as well as man/woman. Physical matter is no longer created but formed.

So, are you saying that God did not create your body?

By the same token, since man was formed from dust, God did not create his body?

However, do you believe your spirit has always existed?

No.

Or did He create that part of you in your mother's womb?

Actually, since "spirit" in Hebrew is identical with "breath" one could say it was created on exiting the womb. But I wouldn't pin it down to any particular time after conception.

You need to read the rest of the chapter...His work included healing, giving life and being judge...

John 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
So, unless natural processes means: turning water into wine, making the blind see, making the lame walk, raising dead, redeeming mankind by His death on the cross and resurrection, becoming our advocate and judge of all things...Then no.​

The particular works which identified Jesus as God's Anointed were the signs, the miracles. So those are not natural. But you are forgetting that the point of contention was not that Jesus was performing miracles, but that he was working on the Sabbath.

Again, I ask, do the signs Jesus was authorized to do apply to all the work that the Father is doing? Or are they a sample of God's work which includes many other actions as well?

IOW is God, in your opinion, limited to acting supernaturally? Do you agree with the concept that "natural" = "godless, i.e. absence of God's presence and action"?

 

[artybloke]

Did Charles Dickens claim inspiration of God?

What has that got to do with whether what the Biblical writers wrote was true and fictional at the same time? Not that the majority of biblical writers actually claimed to be writing under any kind of inspiration; they didn't know they were writing the Bible.

Neat attempt at dodging the issue there. Close but no cigar.

You seem to be under the impression that if it's narrative it has to be factual to be true. I don't see why that follows, and so far you've given me no logical reason why. All storytellers are involved with conveying some kind of truth or message through fiction, are they not? So please tell me if Charles Dickens is a liar because he writes fiction, and why he is.

And it still doesn't deal with the main issue: why can't God convey truths through story? Jesus told parables, which were little fictional stories. Why can't the writers of Genesis?

After all, the Bible was written in an age where the vast majority of people couldn't even read, never mind understand science or mathematics. What better way to convey truth than to sit people down with a cup of 5th century BC latte in Ye Olde Starbucks (Ancient Isreal branch) and say, "In the beginning..."?

 

[Assyrian]

Oh I see the confusion. I worded that poorly. I'm not sure it's going to make much difference for some but let me clarify - the understanding that Genesis should be interpreted as allegorical is a new phenomonon.

I appreciate that allegorical writing is nothing new. I recognise that it's used in Hebrew writings, but the traditional Jewish interpretation of Torah has always included a literal understanding, albeit with more wiggle room than many fundamentals would allow today.

The first century Jewish writers Josephus and Philo interpreted Genesis allegorically. Josephus took Gen 1 literally, but said Moses was writing 'philosophically' about Adam and Eve.

Philo read it all allegorically and was quite blunt about the topic

Allegorical Interpretation
It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days in a space of time at all. Why? Because every period of time is a series of days and nights, and these can only be made such by the movement of the sun as it goes over and under the earth; but the sun is part of heaven, so that time is confessedly more recent than the world. It would there be correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by means of the world, for it was heaven's movement that was the index of the nature of time. When, then, Moses says, "he finished His work on the sixth day," we must understand him to be adducing not a quantity of days, but a perfect number, namely six.

 

[GospelStandard]

Creation as in Genesis

 

[Splayd]

Oh I see the confusion. I worded that poorly. I'm not sure it's going to make much difference for some but let me clarify - the understanding that Genesis should be interpreted as allegorical is a new phenomonon.

I appreciate that allegorical writing is nothing new. I recognise that it's used in Hebrew writings, but the traditional Jewish interpretation of Torah has always included a literal understanding, albeit with more wiggle room than many fundamentals would allow today.

The first century Jewish writers Josephus and Philo interpreted Genesis allegorically. Josephus took Gen 1 literally, but said Moses was writing 'philosophically' about Adam and Eve.

Philo read it all allegorically and was quite blunt about the topic

Thanks for introducing Philo to the topic. He's an interesting figure in all of this and certainly one worth considering. It should be noted that he was a Hellenized Jew, who probably never read Hebrew and whose works were never really accepted within traditional Judaism. In relation to the underlined section of my post - it's apparent then that his understanding hardly qualifies as traditional Jewish interpretation.

That said - his work represents a kind of hybrid between the Hellenistic and Hebraic and proved to be useful for enhancing the understanding of a very Hellenistic Christian Church. For the most part his philosophy was that scripture should be understood literally AND allegorically. He's not too far off the traditional approach in that, but he went to extremes at times. The statement quoted is one such example. It's not so much that his understanding is entirely foreign to traditional thought as it is that he went too far in his zeal for the allegorical.

Jews tend to recognise a few levels of interpretation - Peshat (simple, plain), Remez (implied meaning), Midrash (teaching, application) and Sod (hidden, mystical)... BUT it's generally not an either/or thing, nor is it necessary that everything be understood at all levels. That said - it was understood that the Remez and/or Midrash couldn't contradict the Peshat. The plain simple reading consistently remains. This is the level that I recognise the literal meaning to be apparent, without necessarily ascribing to the extreme clinical literalism that's applied by some.

Philo recognised the beauty and significance of the deeper levels of interpretation and was generally consistent in recognising the Peshat to be in harmony with it, he just placed much greater emphasis on the allegorical. Occassionally he appeared to deny the Peshat though and this is one area where he overstepped the bounds in traditional thought.

Please understand that I'm not opposed to allegorical interpretations as such. I'm just opposed to the consideration that the allegorical is the correct understanding where it isn't also consistent with the simple reading of the text.

 

[gluadys]

The first century Jewish writers Josephus and Philo interpreted Genesis allegorically. Josephus took Gen 1 literally, but said Moses was writing 'philosophically' about Adam and Eve.

Philo read it all allegorically and was quite blunt about the topic

An interesting quote from Philo. Not only does it show an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1, it also shows that Philo believed the earth was flat, that time is a measure of the movement of the heavens and that numbers have symbolic significance.

We now know that the earth is a sphere, and that time is actually a measure of the movement of the earth.

I think, because we now tend to use numbers strictly as a measuring and counting device, that we sometimes underestimate or even forget the symbolic meanings of numbers that were so important in ancient cultures. This may well be a more appropriate way to understand the six days of Genesis 1 than chronology.

 

[Assyrian]

What I find interesting is that the two authors represent such a wide range of first century Judaism. Philo was as you said a Hellenistic Jew from Alexandria. Josephus on the other hand was from Jerusalem and was a priest.

It should be clear from the quotation I gave that Philo didn't see both allegorical and literal meanings in the Genesis creation accounts. He rejected the literal interpretation as foolish.

There are many passages in scripture where the literal is simply not the real meaning of the text. In spite of what the text says in Gen 49, Judah was not a lion and Dan was never a serpent. There are times when scripture has both literal an allegorical meanings. Other times the allegorical is the intended meaning.

What is the meaning of Gen 3:15 Where God tells the serpent he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel? What is the peshat here? Did God speak to a snake and did the Messiah ever step on that snake's head?

 

[jds1977]

No, just trying to understand why you would demean a form of literature often used in the bible as if it somehow didn't "measure up" to more narrative and historical literature

Quit wasting your time w/ loaded statements like this...thanks

Well, now we need to define the portion of Genesis we are dealing with.

gen 1-11

OTOH, genealogies and geographical details are often part of fiction as well--even when they refer to actual people and places--as they provide verisimilitude to the narrative.

Sure, if you're talking about Charles Dickens...but if you use this method in scripture, then it creates numerous problems even heresies. The Jews who the Gospel of Matthew was written to, would not consider Jesus as being in lineage to a king or a Jew for that matter. If Adam was not the first man, then it's contradictory to scripture. if Noah wasn't real, it's contradictory, etc..

Making up more rules?

There's no rule...that's just a statement of the facts...read your bible and see.

But that is insufficient to support it as literal history.

No offence, but it's only insufficient to those who have a different worldview. The bible is not that fuzzy that you have to have a degree in theology and Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to be able to read what it's really saying.

I don't know what you mean by foundational in this context.

Either Abraham came from Shem or he didn't. Either Shem is descended from Adam or it's just fiction. Note: never question the validity of Abraham around other Jews lol

I don't know of any such verses. If you are speaking of NT references to Genesis, they do not indicate whether or not the speaker was referring to history or story. (In fact this distinction probably did not exist at the time.) The point of the reference lies elsewhere e.g. Jesus' comment on marriage. And that point is valid whether or not the story is also history.

Let's start w/ geneologies...1 Chron.1, Mat.1, Luke 3...Jude speaks of Enoch;... 1 Chron., Isaiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, Luke, Hebrews, 1 and 2Peter speak of Noah as being literal....
these scripture refer to the creation account as being literal: Ex.20:11, Neh. 9:6, Ps. 33:6-9, Mat. 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-8, 1 Tim. 2:13-15, Romans 5:12-19, 1 Cor. 15;45, 1 Tim. 2:13,14.... some of these talk about Adam as a literal man.

So, are you saying that God did not create your body?

By the same token, since man was formed from dust, God did not create his body?

Are you assuming the word create has only one meaning? or are you just confusing it w/ the latin ex-nihilo?

Actually, since "spirit" in Hebrew is identical with "breath" one could say it was created on exiting the womb

spirit also means:
1d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals) 1d1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being 1e) spirit (as seat of emotion)
1f1) as seat or organ of mental acts
1f3) as seat especially of moral character

But you are forgetting that the point of contention was not that Jesus was performing miracles, but that he was working on the Sabbath.

I'm not forgetting that...I was just showing that your supporting verse was taken out of context.

IOW is God, in your opinion, limited to acting supernaturally? Do you agree with the concept that "natural" = "godless, i.e. absence of God's presence and action"?

I like how you molded your question in attempt to force me into a wrong answer. I believe God "allows" things to happen...like births, deaths, sickness, catastrophes, kingdoms, etc...But, to say that God guided evolutionary processes is not scriptural. The only way to get that is to mold the scriptures according to your outside philosophies.

 

[jds1977]

What has that got to do with whether what the Biblical writers wrote was true and fictional at the same time? Not that the majority of biblical writers actually claimed to be writing under any kind of inspiration; they didn't know they were writing the Bible

When a writer says..."the Lord said"...or "thus saith the Lord"...then, they're claiming divine inspiration. Did Charles Dickens ever say that? Did Jesus endorse the writings of Charles Dickens or Moses?
Btw...cigars stink...I'd rather smell a pipe.

 

[Mallon]

When a writer says..."the Lord said"...or "thus saith the Lord"...then, they're claiming divine inspiration. Did Charles Dickens ever say that? Did Jesus endorse the writings of Charles Dickens or Moses?
Btw...cigars stink...I'd rather smell a pipe.

What about when they say, "I say this (I, not the Lord)..." (1 Cor 7:10-12)?

What about when nothing is said about the narrator?