If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[brinny]

I believe this. Power in the hands of anyone that has no regard for human life is scary. Power + ego = disaster. It's not that hard to find examples of it...Hitler, White folks going gung-ho into profiting from slavery cause the law allowed it, and let's get back to our 'scientific' community. If allowed, and given leadway, and to win grants, and get their name in those oh-so-famous publications, yes, depraved, ego-driven, power-hungry 'scientists' would harvest babies or other forms of human life (behind closed doors) for their own advancement. You would not necessarily hear about the mounds of bodies in the containers marked toxic waste, etc.

Ever heard of one particular world-famous hospital on the east coast of the US (JHH)and their world-famous research? THeir 'mistakes' are not publicized, and quickly covered up if discovered.

my point is that deep in the receeses of each of our hearts we are depraved. Each of us. The more 'knowledge' and 'power' we have, in our depraved minds...under the right conditions...reaps havoc. We WILL take the liberties from others that can't fight back if we can get away with it, and if it has a 'pay off'. WE've learned to bludgeon any semblance of conscience...thus our depraved li'l selves...and without a conscience? In essence, each of us is capable of depraved acts that blow away the rights of others. And if given the right circumstances, and the chance, that's EXACTLY what we'd do.

 

[notto]

I believe this. Power in the hands of anyone that has no regard for human life is scary. Power + ego = disaster. It's not that hard to find examples of it...Hitler, White folks going gung-ho into profiting from slavery cause the law allowed it, and let's get back to our 'scientific' community. If allowed, and given leadway, and to win grants, and get their name in those oh-so-famous publications, yes, depraved, ego-driven, power-hungry 'scientists' would harvest babies or other forms of human life (behind closed doors) for their own advancement. You would not necessarily hear about the mounds of bodies in the containers marked toxic waste, etc.

Ever heard of one particular world-famous hospital on the east coast of the US (JHH)and their world-famous research? THeir 'mistakes' are not publicized, and quickly covered up if discovered.

my point is that deep in the receeses of each of our hearts we are depraved. Each of us. The more 'knowledge' and 'power' we have, in our depraved minds...under the right conditions...reaps havoc. We WILL take the liberties from others that can't fight back if we can get away with it, and if it has a 'pay off'. WE've learned to bludgeon any semblance of conscience...thus our depraved li'l selves...and without a conscience? In essence, each of us is capable of depraved acts that blow away the rights of others. And if given the right circumstances, and the chance, that's EXACTLY what we'd do.

And scientists, along with politicians, businessmen, career military officers, clergy, and everyone in between has shown us that this is generally the exception, not the rule.

If your rant is directed at science or scientists in general, it is misguided. I especially like the part about how more knoweledge is something you consider dangerous. Cancer survivors would probably disagree with you. That you are posting this through the internet which is a medium made possible with lots of science, testing of theory, and modifications based on new evidence is funny.

Ignorance is the enemy of a free and healthy society. You seem to be trying to suggest that ignorance would be a benefit. I strongly disagree.

 

[brinny]

And scientists, along with politicians, businessmen, career military officers, clergy, and everyone in between has shown us that this is generally the exception, not the rule.

If your rant is directed at science or scientists in general, it is misguided. I especially like the part about how more knoweledge is something you consider dangerous. Cancer survivors would probably disagree with you. That you are posting this through the internet which is a medium made possible with lots of science, testing of theory, and modifications based on new evidence is funny.

Ignorance is the enemy of a free and healthy society. You seem to be trying to suggest that ignorance would be a benefit. I strongly disagree.

'scientific' community. If allowed, and given leadway, and to win grants, and get their name in those oh-so-famous publications, yes, depraved, ego-driven, power-hungry 'scientists' would harvest babies or other forms of human life (behind closed doors) for their own advancement.

Science? Not bad at all. That's why we have the gift of curiousity. God is THE SCientist in the purest sense.

The key point here is the words 'depraved' 'power-hungry' 'ego-driven'.....and intermingle any of it in 'science' and fireworks of the abominable kind can and will happen.

'Science' can be a blessing or a curse. It's all in what deep in your heart you wanna use it for.

 

[brinny]

And scientists, along with politicians, businessmen, career military officers, clergy, and everyone in between has shown us that this is generally the exception, not the rule.

If your rant is directed at science or scientists in general, it is misguided. I especially like the part about how more knoweledge is something you consider dangerous. Cancer survivors would probably disagree with you. That you are posting this through the internet which is a medium made possible with lots of science, testing of theory, and modifications based on new evidence is funny.

Ignorance is the enemy of a free and healthy society. You seem to be trying to suggest that ignorance would be a benefit. I strongly disagree.

the exception, not the rule.

nuh-uh. i'd say it's the rule in this year of 2006.

 

[Willtor]

Science? Not bad at all. That's why we have the gift of curiousity. God is THE SCientist in the purest sense.

The key point here is the words 'depraved' 'power-hungry' 'ego-driven'.....and intermingle any of it in 'science' and fireworks of the abominable kind can and will happen.

'Science' can be a blessing or a curse. It's all in what deep in your heart you wanna use it for.

That's why ethics ought to be so important to a scientist. There are limits to what a scientist ought to test. However, there are forums in which to discuss ethics.

 

[notto]

nuh-uh. i'd say it's the rule in this year of 2006.

Can you name more than a half a dozen scientists who fall under this rule?

Out of the thousands and hundreds of thousands of scientists, if what you suggest is true actually was, we would be seeing ethics and legal violations daily in newspapers across the country with governmental investigations and removal of funding.

Can't really see how you can square your claims with reality in light of some substantiating evidence. Can you provide some?

Name 3 violations of ethics that have happened in the last year. Does it outnumber the amount of significant findings in the last year?

You are claiming something about hundreds and thousands of people that simply isn't true. Without some type of supporting evidence, that would be considered false witness against good people who work hard and ethically to provide medicine, food, understanding, comfort, and cures to those that need it.

 

[nolidad]

mrwilliams writes:

the late medieval age, just before the Reformation, the commonly accepted hermeneutic was called the 4-fold way.

Sorry but the RC church still held to a literal genesis at this point! I am a literal ist as to my hermeneutic but I also know that Scripture has 3 distinct understandings (though not all verses will have all three)

1. The literal--unless specifically noted by language ro phrasing, all passages are to bet aken in their normal usual sense.

2. Doctrinal--passages help us to establish doctrine.

3. personal-- how this passage appliesd to me personally--or what is God saying to me through this passage.

Example-- I have spent months teaching on the book of JOnah, lessons to be learned etc. These teachings in no way detract from tehj fact that a large marine critter swallowed Jonah!!

So sorry-- the church still beleived in a literal creation before the reformation!

Besides the cite you linked showed the fathers respected teh literal intheir use of the allegorical and not one word I found says the churcvh rejected genesis as literal.

scholar in training says:

This is not true. Before the printing press, it was time-consuming to copy manuscripts into a publicly accessible translation of the Bible; illuminated manuscripts were often decorated, like this one. They were never hidden from public sight. They were read aloud by those that could read, and they were fastened to the wall for those who could read for themselves - if you had hand-copied a manuscript, you would do the same thing (without an ulterior motive) to prevent people from stealing the copy you had.

you pretty much just said what I said!! Teh NT was not formulated early- few manuscripts were around, the OT was only beginnig to be circulated in teh gentile churches at the end of the first century, few people even read in those days

willtor complains:

Look, nolidad, the TE's and myself have presented numerous Church fathers over many threads who thought that Genesis ought to be treated figuratively. If the fathers don't represent the laity, then we have no way of knowing what the laity thought. They were illiterate and didn't leave us any writings to tell us. The only thing we can say for sure is that the fathers were treating it figuratively, and there was some group of laity who were treating it literally in Augustine's time.

look willto teh creationuists and myself have poresented numerous church fathers over many threads who though that genesis ought to be treated literally. If those fathers don't represent the laity, then we have no way of knowing what teh laity thought.

I have never disagreed saying that some did not beleive in a literal six day genesis. However they also did not beleive in evolution either. For the most part prior to the dark ages, the church held to a literal 6 day creation. the writings of the antenicene fathers are pretty clear on that! Not unanimous but clear it was the widely held beleif.

At any rate, we have the expounders of the orthodoxy treating Genesis as a figure. If you don't like it, that's fine. I'm not going to belabor it except to say that I think you should read some of these writings. You have said that the figurative interpretation is a minority view.

I never said that the nonliteral is the minority view--to the best of my knowledge a nonliteral read of genesis is the super majority view today.


Seriously, if you're not even going to try, why are you arguing at all? Why not leave it to another YEC who will be scholarly about it?

Well I have the 30 volume antenicene fathers writings and I cannot findone church father who rejects a literal young earth creation in their writings! Do they teach secondary meanings?? Yes! I do as well!! But the allegorical di dnot take away form the literal for the most part in those days. Even Willtors website he linked to shows that when they taught a passaGE NONLITERALLY they still had respect for the literal meaning of the passage. It seems you guys confuse finding spiritual meaings in literal passges with someone saying that it should not be read literally first.

But here you say that, "In the first century no--in the fourth and fifth until the printing press--yes," and, "Well that is but a fairly new thought and bible beleivers [sic] do not agree," without providing a shred of reason or offering up a primary source for me to read. Instead there is only, "I challenge you to find me one period before the late 1800's on when [sic] a nonliteral view of Genesis was the predominant thinking of either the Jews or the church!"

Well I have been the one who has provided more backup for my statements than anyone here. But I will make a deal with you, provide written proof of:

At any rate, we have the expounders of the orthodoxy treating Genesis as a figure.

Give me names and qoutes form expounders of orthodoxy saying they rejected a literal view of genesis. I am going to assume you are talking older expounders as you bring in the doctrine of hypostatic union as an example.

robert the pilgrim writes:

And Joshua's description of the Sun revolving about the Earth was considered factual for nearly as long.

and a dead man rising from the dead and walking through walls has been beleived in for 2 millenia. Do you treat this as nonliterral because science says dead people who have had their blood drained cannot come back to life?

and where di dJoshua give this suppossed astronomical lesson?

notto writes:

A theory is an explaination of observed facts.

Forgive me for chiming in on yours and Brinnys debate but would you please cite for me someone OBSERVING gills evolving to lungs? Or the name of the person/s who observed jaws turning to bills and beaks??

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This is good!!!

1. has been repeatedly tested
or
2. is widely accepted!

IOW if we cannot test it but beleive it--it is the same!

Cite me one prediction the theory of evolution has made about life since Darwin that has come to pass. Now not backward looking but forward looking that is not also explained with Mendellian principles.

They are tested explanations of phenomena that use observable mechanisms to do so.

Please cite the tests of observavble mechanisms that turned lizards to birds!!

Actually, that is what leads to scientific success. That is a strength of the scientific method. That is what leads to cures for disease, better understanding of weather, more efficiency in fuel processing,

Yes this is the work of science--but most of these discoveries are done whether one beleives in creastion or evolution as can be demonstrated by the numerous awards and patents awarded to creationists for new methods and discoveries etc.

 

[Willtor]

look willto teh creationuists and myself have poresented numerous church fathers over many threads who though that genesis ought to be treated literally. If those fathers don't represent the laity, then we have no way of knowing what teh laity thought.

No you haven't. Not even one. The only examples we have are of fathers who seem to have been saying one thing, and their statements taken to mean something totally different by AiG and ICR. As for fathers who treated Genesis literally, I'm sure they exist, I'm just not sure you can tell me which.

I have never disagreed saying that some did not beleive in a literal six day genesis. However they also did not beleive in evolution either. For the most part prior to the dark ages, the church held to a literal 6 day creation. the writings of the antenicene fathers are pretty clear on that! Not unanimous but clear it was the widely held beleif.

This idea that they accepted evolution is entirely your invention. Not even one of us has said that. You're hearing arguments that aren't being made.

I never said that the nonliteral is the minority view--to the best of my knowledge a nonliteral read of genesis is the super majority view today.

God knew this and you are asking the bible believing world to accept as fact that God kept His people (His ambassadors and representatives in all ages) inthe dark as to how He brought things into existence (once again we are talking about in six days as is or long ages and through many small changes), and that He revealed the "realtruth" as to origins through an agnostic and that "real trtuh" stands in opposition to what was beleived by the church according to Scripture for 6 millenia?

---

Well I have the 30 volume antenicene fathers writings and I cannot findone church father who rejects a literal young earth creation in their writings! Do they teach secondary meanings?? Yes! I do as well!! But the allegorical di dnot take away form the literal for the most part in those days. Even Willtors website he linked to shows that when they taught a passaGE NONLITERALLY they still had respect for the literal meaning of the passage. It seems you guys confuse finding spiritual meaings in literal passges with someone saying that it should not be read literally first.

You should read that book you have.

As for Augustine, what do you make of his apparent surprise that believers are taking Genesis literally? How about his admonition at the end?

Well I have been the one who has provided more backup for my statements than anyone here. But I will make a deal with you, provide written proof of:

At any rate, we have the expounders of the orthodoxy treating Genesis as a figure.

Give me names and qoutes form expounders of orthodoxy saying they rejected a literal view of genesis. I am going to assume you are talking older expounders as you bring in the doctrine of hypostatic union as an example.

How is it that you are so unable to accurately represent my arguments? How about I back up my statement instead of yours? After all, since I don't accept yours, it would be hard for me to defend it, adequately. How about I cite the formulator of the doctrine of the hypostatic union to that end?

"... exactly as the first of men created, the one who was named Adam in Hebrew, is described in the Holy Scriptures as having at the beginning had his mind to God-ward in a freedom unembarrassed by shame, and as associating with the holy ones in that contemplation of things perceived by the mind which he enjoyed in the place where he was-the place which the holy Moses called in figure a Garden."

-- "Against the Heathen," St. Athanasius

He goes on to discuss the fall of man as the removing man's gaze from God and setting it upon created things. But not once does he mention a tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is in accordance with taking Moses' garden as a figure. In this sense, he's treating the account of the fall as a legend wherein the elements are figurative. If he thinks they are literal as well, he certainly never mentions it.

But, again, despite your assertions that you back up your arguments, I'm still waiting on your positing of an individual who concerns himself with the literal interpretation, and on defense of early Churches not being able to afford copies of the Scriptures. Furthermore, I'd like to hear some reasons as to why you are so adamant about taking it literally.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the late medieval age, just before the Reformation, the commonly accepted hermeneutic was called the 4-fold way.

Sorry but the RC church still held to a literal genesis at this point! I am a literal ist as to my hermeneutic but I also know that Scripture has 3 distinct understandings (though not all verses will have all three)

1. The literal--unless specifically noted by language ro phrasing, all passages are to bet aken in their normal usual sense.

2. Doctrinal--passages help us to establish doctrine.

3. personal-- how this passage appliesd to me personally--or what is God saying to me through this passage.

Example-- I have spent months teaching on the book of JOnah, lessons to be learned etc. These teachings in no way detract from tehj fact that a large marine critter swallowed Jonah!!

did you even google "four fold way"?

but said that the text could be read in a four-fold way - the literal sense, the moral sense, the allegori­cal sense and the anagogical sense (which derived heavenly meanings from the earthly text). Allegorical meaning was at the heart of this approach. Allegory comes out of fus­ing the historical and the eternal, and the divine and the human. They are not kept distinct, and so the basic historical meaning of the text is lost.

from: http://beginningwithmoses.org/articles/gg_hermandchrist.htm
one of dozens of easy to read essays on hermeneutics available for the price of a google.

your hermeneutic division of literal, doctrinal, personal is a modern hermeneutic, it is not how the church interpreted Scripture for 1800 years.


Do you realize that Jonah is a comedy?
that almost every half a dozen verses contains a complex pun?

see something like http://www.bible.org/NETbible/jon4_notes.htm
and search for "wordplay".
That for a Hebrew speaker it is almost impossible to read outloud without laughing?

or read a Hebrew based commentary like:
Salvation Through Judgment And Mercy: The Gospel According to Jonah (Gospel According to the Old Testament)
by Bryan D. Estelle
(read the amazon reviews)

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

And Joshua's description of the Sun revolving about the Earth was considered factual for nearly as long.

and a dead man rising from the dead and walking through walls has been beleived in for 2 millenia. Do you treat this as nonliterral because science says dead people who have had their blood drained cannot come back to life?

and where di dJoshua give this suppossed astronomical lesson?

Joshua 10:10-14

You mistake my intent, I see no particular reason not to believe that God caused the apparent motion of the Sun to stop, but Joshua and the scribe who described the event talked about the Sun stopping.

Nothing about apparent motion, nothing about the earth rotating about its axis,

The Sun and the Moon stopped moving.

Which, while possible, would have nothing to do with the long day.

 

[nolidad]

mrwilliams writes:

did you even google "four fold way"?

yes I did, but what has this got to do with my original challenge of finding me a time before the mid 1800's when a majority of the church did not accept a literal genesis.

This 4 fold way was posted but nothing is mentioned at all in yoru posts on Genesis.

your hermeneutic division of literal, doctrinal, personal is a modern hermeneutic, it is not how the church interpreted Scripture for 1800 years.

Alls it is is a revamp of the 4 fold way with kicking out allegorical method of interpretation.

Do you realize that Jonah is a comedy?
that almost every half a dozen verses contains a complex pun?

Do you realize that JOnah actually happened as written??




Robert the Pilgrim writes:

You mistake my intent, I see no particular reason not to believe that God caused the apparent motion of the Sun to stop, but Joshua and the scribe who described the event talked about the Sun stopping.

Boy you really do love straining at gnats and gulping down the camels don't you ?? Is it so hard for you who claims to be a beleiver to accpet the miraculous hand of God on behalf of His people?? You sound like the atheists do when they rip at Gods Word!!

Well here is JOshua--


12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.


Well you can talk about apparent motion- earths rotation etc. But any way you slice it=the sun stayed still in that part of the sky!! Physics would say iumpossible--God said it happened!! How it did is not that important. Whether God kept the sun in motion to stay int hat part of the sky or haltred the rotation of the earth weithout the catastrophic effects that would entail if not done supernaturally God chose not to reveal--We just know that that was an extra long day for JOshua to defeat the enemies of Gods people.

Which, while possible, would have nothing to do with the long day.

Daylight was extra long whether or not that day was more than 24 hours is not the issue of that Scripture.


Willtor writes:

No you haven't. Not even one. The only examples we have are of fathers who seem to have been saying one thing, and their statements taken to mean something totally different by AiG and ICR. As for fathers who treated Genesis literally, I'm sure they exist, I'm just not sure you can tell me which.

Well I will make yoiu a deal--you post the bunch you seem to imply that did not take gensis one literally and I will psot writings of early fathers who simply accepted it as literal.

This idea that they accepted evolution is entirely your invention. Not even one of us has said that. You're hearing arguments that aren't being made.

Well the early church fathers were all special creationists who beleived in a young earth. There were argumetns about meaning but that is basded on their philophy and not the scriptures. Show me one church father who rejected a literal view of creation as stated in Genesis 1. I agree that saying they did not beleive in evolution is my creation, because it did not exist in church circles (except in the pagan heresies plaguing the church. Though this form of evolution hardly resembles the form of today)

How is it that you are so unable to accurately represent my arguments? How about I back up my statement instead of yours? After all, since I don't accept yours, it would be hard for me to defend it, adequately. How about I cite the formulator of the doctrine of the hypostatic union to that end?

It seems to me the hypostatic union qoute is entirely irrelevant to this argument

He goes on to discuss the fall of man as the removing man's gaze from God and setting it upon created things. But not once does he mention a tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is in accordance with taking Moses' garden as a figure. In this sense, he's treating the account of the fall as a legend wherein the elements are figurative. If he thinks they are literal as well, he certainly never mentions it.

So let me get this straight, Athanaius is writing against heresies. He is not writing a discourse on Genesis 1-3. So because in this discourse he does not mention the tree of knowledge, you say "in this sense" he treats Adam as figu rative.therefore he must not accept Genesis 1&2 as literal. Do you realize how inanae your basis for saying athenasius thinking it is figurative rteally is?? Why dont you read the whole discouse against teh heathen and find out he is not concerned with dealing with Genesis as literal or figurative. Can I take a statemetn of yours that mentions adam and conclude that in that statemetn because you di dnot say it was a myth I could declare you beleive in a 6-10K old earth??

How is it that you are so unable to accurately represent my arguments? How about I back up my statement instead of yours? After all, since I don't accept yours, it would be hard for me to defend it, adequately. How about I cite the formulator of the doctrine of the hypostatic union to that end?

I repeat my question to you again>

Give me names and qoutes form expounders of orthodoxy saying they rejected a literal view of genesis. I am going to assume you are talking older expounders as you bring in the doctrine of hypostatic union as an example.

I Am not interested in the hypostatic union or your opinion on what a passage means--find me the teaching that you don't comment on that says the early fathers rejected a literal take on Genesis. I don't want a passage where He is making personal application or doctrinal comparison, just a straightforward statement that doesn't have to be jerrymandered by you that says they thought Genesis 1 or 2 or both were just story.

As for Augustine, what do you make of his apparent surprise that believers are taking Genesis literally? How about his admonition at the end?

As I said before there ar eexamples of early beleivers who rejected literalism ( Augustine being the father of allegorical interpretation being one of them) but on ehistorian does not the churches beleif makes. Try going opn Catholic web sites and find out tehy beleived the early RCC accepted a literal Genesis. Heck even my old Baltimore Catechism says that.

 

[nolidad]

or read a Hebrew based commentary like:
Salvation Through Judgment And Mercy: The Gospel According to Jonah (Gospel According to the Old Testament)
by Bryan D. Estelle
(read the amazon reviews)

Read the review:

Bryan Estelle is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary in California, and this is his first book. I hope that it is not his last. The wee OT book of Jonah is a complex book, offering a lot of fun for those interested in biblical literature and who are especially conversant with Hebrew. In fact, Estelle's understanding of the Hebrew language and ANE culture, as well as his committment to Christ has produced an excellent commentary on Jonah that is simple and easy to read and understand, thought-provoking, and devotional. He writes for the pastor or Bible study leader to help him understand the intricacies of the book, and gives insight into the theological thrust so that he may be able to preach the text from a Christological viewpoint, which is the ultimate point of the book (and the whole OT for that matter). With that end in mind, each chapter ends with several good questions that can be used to help the pastor prepare a sermon on the text, or by the Bible study leader to generate thoughtful discussions within the group. But it is not just theological, it is practical and he calls the reader to respond in faith and obedience to the One who is greater than Jonah. So he takes some difficult theological positions and discusses them for the contemporary reader. One such discussion that I found helpful was his teaching on just how it is that God "repents" or "relents" from chapter 3. He deals with the problem from a biblical perspective that is true to orthodoxy and helpful in the present discussions of "open theism." Dr. Estelle interacts with other commentators and uses generous quotes from other works of literature that blends in well with the teaching. He shies away from allegory, but shows just how it is prophecy pointing to Christ, and not merely an interesting historical story. Although I do not think it is the only book a serious student of Jonah will want, the one who reads this book will not be disappointed and will gain much insight.

It appears that this authoir treats JOb as a historical event as well as prophecies pointing ot Christ (which is easy seeing as Jesus pointed to JOnah and verified that Jonah did spend 3 days in teh fishes belly). So what is th epoint of bringing this up??? He shies form allegory and the review says it is historical.

Do you realize that Jonah is a comedy?
that almost every half a dozen verses contains a complex pun?

And the point being??

 

[Willtor]

I think you should read over my previous posts for all the responses to your points that aren't misunderstandings of what I've written. Also, I suggest you read, "Against the Heathen," and see that, although it isn't only about Genesis, he spends a few chapters discussing origins. The fall, in particular, is not related to eating fruit, but to taking one's eyes off of God. You really should read it.

I'm done making my case, and I don't really have any more to say until you start backing up your assertions (or, perhaps, until you start making more assertions).

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Do you realize that Jonah is a comedy?
that almost every half a dozen verses contains a complex pun?




Do you realize that JOnah actually happened as written??

And the point being??

You insist that Jonah is primarily historical and a description of what really happened in our time and space. Yet when i present the evidence that the book is a comedy, that it is a piece of literature, you dismiss it. The point is that the form of the literature constraints and molds the material, that the meaning of the literature is more important and significant than its historicity. It is only to a culture like ours that is historicist, that associates mythos with being false, that seems to lack understanding that the Bible is first literature not history. It is only or merely literature? No, but you have to understand the literary methods to understand the meaning. Jonah does not have to be historical to be true, the puns indicate that it is more literature than history.

The puns are the internal evidence that the book is to be understood first as literature and secondarily as history.

 

[nolidad]

mrwilliams writes:

You insist that Jonah is primarily historical and a description of what really happened in our time and space. Yet when i present the evidence that the book is a comedy, that it is a piece of literature, you dismiss it.

Well let me see, you posted a website that just went into a linguistic study that didn't have any humour at all in it. I read the review.

It had no examples of the divine comedy just that it was a comedy--no evidence yet--just the say so of 2 people oin line. So he is a professor of OT theology and he teaches at a small college and this is his first work.

So on the basis of this we should throw out 3,500 years of writing???

The puns are the internal evidence that the book is to be understood first as literature and secondarily as history.

Once again--you have one writer who insists that Hebrew idioms are puns. I hate to tell you this but the word meditate in the hebrew means to chew the cud!!!

No, but you have to understand the literary methods to understand the meaning. Jonah does not have to be historical to be true, the puns indicate that it is more literature than history.

If it was designed to be a work of fiction then it could carry truth, but JOnah was not set up as a work of fiction but a historical account-- you need more evidence than one professor to say JOnah was a fictional comedy inserted into scripture for the good morals it has.

willtor writes:

The fall, in particular, is not related to eating fruit, but to taking one's eyes off of God. You really should read it.

I shall read it tonight! But teh fall took place because they ate the fruit in disobedience to Gods command! Did they trake their eyes off God? yes! Did they stop beleiving God? Yes! I can list many thingsd they did wrong when they took and ate the fruit--but it all happened because they took and ate the fruit!

I am still waiting for you to come up with a time prior to the 1800's when the church held to a nonliteral understanding of genesis. I am not talking about the other meanings that can be drawn from all scripture--but a statement where the church considers Genesis 1&2 to be nonhistorical.

Just returned from reading the 2nd -5th sections. Really loved it!! He takes from the historical events fot he fall and shows the complex devestation that took place after the fall!

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-12.htm#P1580_530551

Try part three section 35--Athanasius speaks directly of the creation!! And beleives it is literal.!!

 

[KerrMetric]

I am still waiting for you to come up with a time prior to the 1800's when the church held to a nonliteral understanding of genesis. I am not talking about the other meanings that can be drawn from all scripture--but a statement where the church considers Genesis 1&2 to be nonhistorical.

Google Augustine.

The purpose of the Bible is redemptive, said Augustine. God gave us the Bible to instruct us in the knowledge of salvation, not science. In his Literal Commentary Augustine asked what Scripture teaches about the shape or the form of the heavens, a topic that many ancient writers addressed. Are the heavens spherical or flat like a disc? Or, does it matter? He responded: "Many scholars engage in lengthy discussion on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omittedthem. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial." These words may seem to suggest that Augustine disparaged science, and he has been interpreted that way by secular-minded readers. He did not think that natural knowledge was worthless, only that it was inferior to knowledge of God, who made nature. Augustine was saying that the biblical authors were not giving a definitive theory of the heavens in a scientific fashion.

Augustine warned against a danger among Christians of his day and ours. If the Christian insists on a certain scientific theory as if it were the teaching of th e Bi ble, and it turned out to be wrong, then the unbeliever will reject the Bible wholesale and miss the saving purpose God has in composing it. This danger is so real that Augustine emphasized it a number of times in his writings. Unreliable knowledge of nature is not damning but it can be a stumbling block "if he thinks his view of nature belongs to the very form of orthodox doctrine, and dares obstinately to affirm something he does not understand." In this case, the Christian's lack of true knowledge becomes an obstacle to the unbeliever's embracing the truth of the gospel. The great harm, says the bishop of Hippo, is not that "an ignorant individual is derided" but that "people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and . . . the writers of Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men."

 

[nolidad]

for those interested:

Here are a few links to teh ante nicene fathers and their beleif in a literal historical creation:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xi.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxxi.html#ix.iii.xxxi-p19.1
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxiv.html#ix.vii.xxiv-p6.2 (taking Genesis literally)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.vi.html#ix.vii.vi-p1.5
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xii.html

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Once again--you have one writer who insists that Hebrew idioms are puns.

you can read them for yourself, a careful Hebrew inductive study of Jonah is at:
http://www.bibal.net/04/proso/psalms-ii/pdf/dlc_reading-jonah-b.pdf

which points out the Paronomasia in the Book of Jonah. it is not one writer, Jonah is a work of literature not history, the evidence is the paronomasia.

 

[Willtor]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xi.html

Defense of creation ex nihilo and a refutation of a particular gnostic godess as the true source of creation. Two things that nobody here disputes.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxxi.html#ix.iii.xxxi-p19.1

Another refutation of gnostic doctrine in favor of orthodoxy. Also, a minor attack on Marcion (a justified attack IMO). Defense of creation ex nihilo. Again nothing anybody, here, disputes.

There is a brief reference to the flood likely indicating a literal interpretation of the flood account. But Irenaeus places it in the context of God as the ultimate origin of all natural things and as an attack on the aforementioned gnostic goddess. We can talk more about this, if you'd like.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxiv.html#ix.vii.xxiv-p6.2 (taking Genesis literally)

This is probably taking the fall account literally. It is a little bit ambiguous because he quotes the fall narrative, almost verbatim, and the culmination of his analysis is that, "From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God." This is, of course, the conclusion that all orthodox Christians draw from the account, whether historically factual or entirely figurative.

However, he does discuss the unusually long life of Adam and attempts to reconcile it with death on the same day Adam ate of the fruit. So this is probably a more literal interpretation of the fall than a lot of people take it, here. Do note, however, that in taking the account as corresponding to an historical sequence of events, he quickly analyzes incongruities with what is known, naturally, and makes the elements figurative.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.vi.html#ix.vii.vi-p1.5

This has nothing to do with creation.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xii.html

God is the creator of all things. He is their sustainer. Yes, we all signed the Creed. That's why we have Christian symbols next to our names.

---

You have one good reference to a literal fall account, and one "possibly" to the flood. You have to realize that when you see "creation" it doesn't necessarily support your view over any other Christian's. We are all, here, creationists. Some of us also think the Genesis creation account was intended literally. Creation from nothing is orthodox. Special creation... it looks like you'll have to make that case yourself.

 

[nolidad]

mrwilliams writes:

you can read them for yourself, a careful Hebrew inductive study of Jonah is at:
http://www.bibal.net/04/proso/psalms...ng-jonah-b.pdf

Well when I get time ZI will read them--but if it is like the other website--they maybe puns in English but not in Hebrew. It is how they talked in them there days--go ask any Rabbi fluent in Hebrew!!! So you have 2 modern liberal schoilars saying that these are fictional works of literature filled with puns intended to teach lessons and I have tens of thousands of Rabbis and Christian Hebrew Scholars whop accept it as a literal account filled with princviples we can draw from to learn more of who God is. I like my account better especially as JOnah was the book used by archeologists to finally discover thew long lost city of Nineveh. It was considered just a myth until bible beleivers di dthe work and found the city.

willtor writes:

Defense of creation ex nihilo and a refutation of a particular gnostic godess as the true source of creation. Two things that nobody here disputes.

But your concept of creation ex-nihilo and this writers are vastly different. He qoutes genesis as being literal--he assumes it so.

Another refutation of gnostic doctrine in favor of orthodoxy. Also, a minor attack on Marcion (a justified attack IMO). Defense of creation ex nihilo. Again nothing anybody, here, disputes.

Agasin it is creation ex nihilo according ot Genesis.

This is probably taking the fall account literally. It is a little bit ambiguous because he quotes the fall narrative, almost verbatim, and the culmination of his analysis is that, "From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God." This is, of course, the conclusion that all orthodox Christians draw from the account, whether historically factual or entirely figurative.

PROBABLY??? Then I guess I would have to say that based on your writings you probably are a TE! No this writer fully beleives in a literal account of Genesis! Just like you literally don't. Really please do not play these little word games with the obvious.

[This has nothing to do with creation./QUOTE]

1. [In order to learn] that bodies did continue in existence for a lengthened period, as long as it was God’s good pleasure that they should flourish, let [these heretics] read the Scriptures, and they will find that our predecessors advanced beyond seven hundred, eight hundred, and nine hundred years of age; and that their bodies kept pace with the protracted length of their days, and participated in life as long as God willed that they should live. But why do I refer to these men? For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. Elijah, too, was caught up [when he was yet] in the substance of the [natural] form; thus exhibiting in prophecy the 531 assumption of those who are spiritual, and that nothing stood in the way of their body being translated and caught up. For by means of the very same hands through which they were moulded at the beginning, did they receive this translation and assumption. For in Adam the hands of God had become accustomed to set in order, to rule, and to sustain His own workmanship, and to bring it and place it where they pleased. Where, then, was the first man placed? In paradise certainly, as the Scripture declares “And God planted a garden [paradisum] eastward in Eden, and there He placed the man whom He had formed.”4471 And then afterwards when [man] proved disobedient, he was cast out thence into this world. Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition4472), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality.

He affirms the biblical life spans-- the garden of Eden and the fall--presupposing the beleif when He said God formed Adam He accepts Genesis as literal. They had no other creed to accept.

God is the creator of all things. He is their sustainer. Yes, we all signed the Creed. That's why we have Christian symbols next to our names.

It is easy to prove from the very words of the Lord, that He acknowledges one Father and Creator of the world, and Fashioner of man, who was proclaimed by the law and the prophets, while He knows no other, and that this One is really God over all;

Yes but His concpet of creator and yours are vastly different--He acknowledges the Word of God as true while you account it as myth.

In this era the common beleif as I have shown was understood to be special fiat creation ex-deo as expoinded in Genesis. You on the other hand beleive God created matter and some where around the big bang-left it to evolutionary processes to finish what He started. I don't know if you go so far as to say He guided evolution--but then again you don't even have a scripturte to back up your opinion on that and the secular evolutionists would just pooh pooh you off.

I find it so saddening that you will jump at any nuance of language to justify downgrading th eliteraslness of Genesis 1&2 and yet fluff off these statemetns from the early church fathers and the creeds behind them that affirm the historicity of Genesis.

That last qoute even makews a prophetic jab at evolution:

But they believe that angels, or some power separate from God, and who was ignorant of Him, formed this universe. By this course, therefore, not yielding credit to the truth, but wallowing in falsehood,

But of course as a TE you would say that the power of evolution is the power of God at work in the universe! Well I am still waiting for you to post some references to anytime where the church did not hold to a literal genesis prior to the mid 1800's. You mentioned Augustine but did not even cite a reference and I will not wade through the volumous writings of him to find your qoute-- so in a debate setting your reference is nullified.