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

[gluadys]

First the nonliteral:

From Matthew 13:

The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

We know that teh kingdom of heaven is not leaven by the use of the term "like unto". Jesus here is spinning a tale to explain a concept.

He is not spinning a tale; he is using a simile, making a comparison. If the comparison is apt, the kingdom of heaven literally works in this world as leaven does in the dough. Figures of speech are not limited to non-literal discourse.

Now the literal:

From Luke 16:

19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,


We know this is a true story because of the term "there was a man" which tells us there was a man!

So do most parables:

A sower went out to sow his seed....
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves....
A certain man made a great supper....
A certain man had two sons....
There was a certain rich man who had a steward...


Now I grant you that parables are true; but they are not literal history. The grammar does not call for these men to be men living outside of the story.

 

[artybloke]

I was talking about the Dark and Middle Ages when the problem was that most people didn't even speak the same language the scriptures were in. You had to be educated to read Latin.

That would have been fairly true everywhere except Greece in the ancient world. The earliest (Jewish) Christians would have spoken Aramaic, the more educated would have used Greek at least functionally (but probably not fluently) and those few who had access to an education (at best 10% of them) would have been fluent. The disciples themselves were probably illiterate, except for those in occupations which required some level of literacy. Paul was educated - but how many of his listeners were?

 

[Assyrian]

Please define "quote", because I have not yet seen that happen. You are aware that allusions are one way to "quote" something in a society without MLA and ALA standards? After all, I have used the words "quoted verbatim" instead of "quoted" for a reason.

MLA and ALA?

It is hard to quote verbatim when you are writing in a different language to the one you are quoting from, so a writer may end up quoting from the LXX, from a different translation, or translate it themselves from the Hebrew. They may quote from memory instead of checking the original text, so you get small variations coming in. For example with the proverbs quote in James we have:

James 4:6 Therefore it says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
διο λεγει ο θεος υπερηφανοις αντιτασσεται ταπεινοις δε διδωσιν χαριν
While in the LXX says Prov 3:34 The Lord resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble.
κύριος ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν.

Notice that, even though I accept the acoprypha, I have been speaking specifically of SIRACH AND WISDOM, not the entire apocrypha as you have. I have concentrated on these two books because most of the verses alluding to the apocrypha come from them.

If we want to look at a very clear parallel between Jesus' words and Wisdom literature, however:

Matthew 11:29-30 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Sirach 6:19-31 Come to (Wisdom) like one who plows and sows. Put your neck into her collar. Bind your shoulders and carry her...Come unto her with all your soul, and keep her ways with all your might...For at last you will find the rest she gives...Then her fetters will become for you a strong defense, and her collar a glorious robe. Her yoke is a golden ornament, and her bonds a purple cord.

Sirach 51:26 Put your neck under the yoke, and let your soul receive instruction: she is hard at hand to find.

Sir 51:26Put your neck under the yoke, and let your souls receive instruction; it is to be found close by. And
Matt 11:29Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
share the words yolk, ζυγος, and 'your souls' though in different cases.

Sirach 6 does not use the word ζυγος at all, though in the whole passage Sirach 6:19-31 I was able to find the common phrase find rest.
Sir 6:28For at last you will find the rest she gives, and she will be changed into joy for you. ευρησεις την αναπαυσιν αυτης
Matt 11:29Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ευρησετε αναπαυσιν ταις ψυχαις υμων


So while quotations of the OT are almost word for word, Allusions people find to the Apocrypha only share similar ideas or metaphors with maybe a couple of words in common. The NT writers may have valued the godly wisdom in Sirach, but they didn't treat it as inspired scripture.

 

[Assyrian]

That would have been fairly true everywhere except Greece in the ancient world. The earliest (Jewish) Christians would have spoken Aramaic, the more educated would have used Greek at least functionally (but probably not fluently) and those few who had access to an education (at best 10% of them) would have been fluent. The disciples themselves were probably illiterate, except for those in occupations which required some level of literacy. Paul was educated - but how many of his listeners were?

Aramaic speakers (and that included not just Galileans but the whole Persian (Parthian) empire) already had the OT and Matthew's gospel was in Aramaic in its original form, I imagine you would have had Aramaic translation of the epistles flying around pretty quickly too. Greek was the lingua franca of much of the Roman empire, it was only when Paul and Barnabas were really out in the sticks that they had language problems, even then, while they didn't understand Lycaonian the Lycaonians understood their Greek. In the Latin speaking world, the problem was not a lack of translations before Jerome's Vulgate but of too many bad quality translations.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Matthew's gospel was in Aramaic in its original form,

What proportion of scholars hold this view today?

 

[Assyrian]

I'm probably a but behind the times here, but I consider the second century Papias more reliable than the various hypotheses of modern scholarship, at least until they come up with some solid evidence. Papias, at least according to Eusebius, claimed that Matthew put together the saying of the Lord in the Hebrew (prob. Aramaic) language. If it was not actually Matthew, and I see no reason to doubt that it was, it is at least very early testimony for an Aramaic 'words of Jesus' doing the rounds.

 

[nolidad]

gluadys writes:

So do most parables:

A sower went out to sow his seed....
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves....
A certain man made a great supper....
A certain man had two sons....
There was a certain rich man who had a steward...

The only parable you listed here is the sower. The others to conclude they are parables is opinion and not based on th egrammar of the writing.

The sower is known as a parable by the following:

2And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

3Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: 4And it came (Mark)

And Matt.13:

3And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

The others you listed have no intro saying they are parables, to conclude they are only speculative based on opinion and not on any evidence.

He is not spinning a tale; he is using a simile, making a comparison. If the comparison is apt, the kingdom of heaven literally works in this world as leaven does in the dough.

See it is a comparision that lets us know that the kingdom of heaven is not yeast but works just like yeast does in bread--please do not think I do not know this is still comparative.

Assyrian writes:

You still haven't backed you claim up with any quotations, and you could also do with learning what Nihil obstat and Imprimatur mean.

When they appear in a book--it means the RCC approves the contents.

The translation is the WEB, the ESV say enslavers. The Greek word is andrapodistēs, the one you mentioned, androphonos, comes from the previous verse, manslayers or murderers. As for Onesimus, what do you think the phrase no longer as a slave (Philemon 1:16) means?

Well my bad on the mix up on the verses:

As to teh passage from philemon; Onesimus gopt saved while fleeing from his owner Philemon (begfotten by PAul in his bonds), He is sending onesimus back to his owner. He is asking (not ordering) to receive onesimus as a brother not just a slave anymore. Once against it is a request nor is he saying that if he should dare keep him, a slave- he would be a sinner in doing so. To say that PAul is writing against slavery is adding to he verse.

I am not sure the reason for the long spiel from K&D, we were talking about Jewish Rabbis not Jewish Christian commentators. The Talmud describes Genesis 1 as a poem, and modern Rabbis both conservative and liberal have the same view.

I would like to see some qoutes.

You still haven't backed you claim up with any quotations, and you could also do with learning what Nihil obstat and Imprimatur mean.

As soon a sI can find a dhouay rheims online witrh commetnary from earlier than the 60's I will gladly qoute. But would me transcribing the notes in my old RCC bible dofor now?

You think that was the only repetition? The evening and mornings are just the chorus, the whole thing is poetic.

I wonder why that is a minority view from Hebrew scholars.

What I find fascinating is the way YECs read figurative language and take it in their stride. They don't even notice that it is figurative and that they are interpreting it figuratively. Which is the way it should be. But then they come to a passage like Genesis 1 that they have been told has to be interpreted literally, and all the subtlety of their linguistic abilities disappears out the window.

Since when did even poetic forms like the psalms mean that it shouldn't be read literally. Even if something is poetic does not mean it automatically is figurative.

Again--there is nothing in the grammar of Genesis 1 that concludes it should be looked at figuretively and not literally and you have yet to show anything in the text to say anyone should reconsider that position.

Then we were talking about very different things, You were talking of the availability of copies of scriptures in the first century, though at least the copies available were understood by the people in the congregation listening to them. I was talking about the Dark and Middle Ages when the problem was that most people didn't even speak the same language the scriptures were in. You had to be educated to read Latin.

Well even then the scriptures were pretty much chained in churches or in the libraries of th ewealthy and th ey were still rare.

I pointed out some of the testimony to the poetic character of Genesis. You said even if he did does that make poetic style of writing nonliteral and gave the example of the song of Moses, which while it described a literal event, did so in some very figurative language.

You should compare the two side by side and you will see they are constructred very diofferently. Even the meter of the Hebrew is different. Teh song of deliverance is nearly identical to the format of writing found in the psalms. Genesis 1 is constructed as a simple narrative.

In fact you didn't start off asking for the official position, you just wanted the predominant view. It is only when we showed you that Augustine and Aquinas's views were the predominant view throughout most of church history that you start asking for the official view. The Catholic Church doesn't have an official view on how to interpret the days in Genesis, it is not a matter of dogma. But the predominant view would have followed Augustine and Aquinas.

Well its easy for you tro make the claim that teh predominant view folloowed augustine and Aquinas--now please prove it with some facts. And I never did switch from predominant view to offical view-- I always asked for you to show me when the church held to genesis nonliterally.

prove that Augustines allegorical view of Genesis became the predominant view of catholicism prior to after the reformation (I move the line back 3 centuries for you) and yo win.

You rejected Augustine's testimony because his heretical teachings led the church into the dark ages, but you do want the church's official position.

Well Augustine was not he only cause the RCC went in to darknewss for a millenium but many of his dogma helped.

Incidentally you keep up your slur against Origen, linking him with Arius now, but you still haven't backed up your claim.

Actually it is the other way around-- Arius i slinked to origen for he took some of his teachings and ran with them after origens death. matter of fact the denial of the physical resurrection held sway in many areas of the church for about 1/2 century until Bishop Hippo of Philedelphia went against the aRians and won. Arian teaching was a big catalyst for formalizing the creeds and formalizing the scriptures

The same ten commandments. It is interesting that while the days of creation are given as an illustration for the Jewish sabbath in Exodus, when Moses repeats the ten commandments in Deuteronomy, he gives a completely different reason for it. Apparently, what was being taught was Sabbath observance, the six 'days' of creation and the freedom from captivity were simply illustrations. Which means there is nowhere that actually teaches a literal six day creation, it is simply used as a metaphorical illustration to teach something else.

You really are twisted aren't you? In exodus God commands Israel to follow His example. He created in Six days then rested the seventh and told them to do the same. To see anything else inthat passage or to think that God was using a six day creation merely as a nonliteral illustration shows a very disengenious thinking process. (or IOW a mond intent on dissimulation to achieve its own ends)

Where does it say that?

I know it is written in a style far beneatrh you rintellect but Genesis 1! Everybody I kno who picks it up and reads it comes to teh same conclusion-- each "evening and morning" a first day, a second day etc. are the 24 hour periods we call days. IN 97 pages you have yet to show why this very exacting description of 7 days should be viewed as undefined periods like "yom" is used in other places (it is also used as a 24 hour day in other places)

But let me ask you to be objective here:

If I told you an event took place and said that it took from the sungoing down to the sunrising again to the place of going down --how long would yo uthink I was saying? I will goive you a hint-- this phraseology is only used as a 24 hour period or a day!!! Now the proof is still onyou to show why this passage should not be read literally as the stylke of writing connotes? Why should it be read as a nonliteral rendition of God creating?? 97 pages and you haven't answered this yet!!

But for your charge to Genesis 1 being written poetically:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis ( I especially like th ecommentary here on Augustine going all metaphysical)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp
(shatters by example the concept of genesis being written in Hebrew poetic style)

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/march2000.htm

http://www.ldolphin.org/starform.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/genmyth.html (another site that shows why Genesis 1 is not Hebrew poetry)

So as they say the ball is now in yoru court!!! I will try to find an older RCC catechism online to qoute from.

 

[gluadys]

The only parable you listed here is the sower. The others to conclude they are parables is opinion and not based on th egrammar of the writing.

The sower is known as a parable by the following:

2And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

Wait a minute. This is a comment provided to readers of the gospel. It is not part of the story. The text does not say that Jesus told his listeners "Now here is a parable." What they heard was "A sower went out to sow his seed..."

Did his listeners suppose Jesus was talking about a particular individual who actually existed and went out to sow, or telling a story in which the sower was representative of any peasant farmer?

The others you listed have no intro saying they are parables, to conclude they are only speculative based on opinion and not on any evidence.

And to conclude otherwise is equally speculative and based on opinion and not on any evidence.

However, I also think it is significant that the majority of biblical scholars by far have concluded that these are parables. What can you produce to show that their conclusion is erroneous? Why should I give your speculation credence over theirs?

Again--there is nothing in the grammar of Genesis 1 that concludes it should be looked at figuretively and not literally and you have yet to show anything in the text to say anyone should reconsider that position.

Just as there is nothing in the grammar of the parables to show they should not be considered observations of historical events rather than fictional narratives told to illustrate a teaching.

Grammar does not point to whether a text is historical/literal or imaginative narrative. One cannot tell from the grammar whether the days of Gen. 1 are chronological days in history or literary days in a creative story about creation.


Just as one cannot tell from the grammar whether the sower or the man who fell among thieves near Jericho or the rich man who died were people Jesus had actually met and seen these events happen to, or people in a story he created and told as part of his teaching technique.

Just because a story does not say in plain language that it is not history does not mean it is history. It means you cannot tell the difference. A factual narrative and an imaginary narrative use the same grammar.

 

[nolidad]

Well to answer Assyrians assault on Moses Song of Deliverance.

the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea. [They were literally thrown into the sea? Doesn't that contradict the Exodus account?]

No it does not! Teh fact that teh Lord was the cause of the Egyptian chariots to chase down the Israelites in tot he parted Red Sea shows God was the cause of the Egyptians to be sent into the sea. So while God did not actually pick up andf throw each and every chariot into the sea--the song accurately depicts whqat the Lord did by His actions. Bible 101

3 The LORD is a man of war; the LORD is his name. [The LORD is a man? A man of war even?

the word man here is "iysh" which is normally translated male or husband--but when used in the context of battle--it means one who is the champion (as Goliath was for the philistines) so yes God is the champion of war as used in this context and He is a man of war. Many atheisdts I have debated bring this up many many times that the Hebrew God is a bloody God.

In the greatness of your majesty you overthrow your adversaries; you send out your fury; it consumes them like stubble. [I would have though they would be too wet to burn properly]

consumes is in the qal--which is to eat,consume, devour or destroy! And Gods fury literally destroyed and consumed HIs enemies!!!

8 At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up; the floods stood up in a heap; the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea. [The blast of God's nostrils? Do you really take this poetry literally? Did the sea actually congeal?]

First actual real figurative anthropormorphism in this passage!! (For in Exodus it was told God sent a strong east wind) and congealed is in the qal- and so it primary and secondary meanings are to condense or pile up so yes this is accurate taken literally.

10 You blew with your wind; the sea covered them; they sank like lead in the mighty waters. [God blew?]

Its Gods wind--can't he blow with it--like if you blew your trumpet???

12 You stretched out your right hand; the earth swallowed them. [more anthropomorphism followed by a description that literally says they died on dry land]

no the way they perished is the planet swallowed them-- as the usage appears. If they wanted dry land (meaning the ground) they would have used Adamah instead. How do you know God doesn't have a right hand? You have to remember God made man in HIs image and likeness. likeness refers to character and image refers to form or structure.

16 Terror and dread fall upon them[fall?]; because of the greatness of your arm[anthropomorphism again], they are still as a stone, till your people, O LORD, pass by, till the people pass by whom you have purchased. [They are seized by trembling and they are still as a stone?]

YOU REALLY SHOULD LOOK A LITTLE AT TEH WORDS BEFORE YOU ATTEMPT TO MOCK SOMEONE WITH THEM!!! How noisy are stones??? Still here refers to noise- not movemetn!!

17 You will bring them in and plant them [like cabbages?] on your own mountain, the place, O LORD, which you have made for your abode, the sanctuary [God lives there?], O Lord, which your hands have established.[hands?]

Yes Israel was established (planted like setting your feet not like you rcabbage brain )And while God is omnipresent He also said He would make Zion his place on earth where He would only dwell. So yeah I accept it as written. And why wouldn't God have hands??? dO SPIRIT BEING NOT HAVE HANDS? YOU WOULD KNOW THIS HOW??

So you see, while this is a beautiful poetic song praising God for HIs deliverance and it uses very stylized language-- there is nothing wrong in acceptring it as a literal event with literal events in it.

God is a man (champion ) of war.

Jesus sits at the right hand (favoured hand) of God-- there is no reason to think that Gods form is different than mans-- we are made in his form or likeness.

 

[nolidad]

Assyrian writes:

Then we read Genesis 2. The order is very clear here too: man, plants, animals and then woman.

Well I thought you had the intellect enough to recognize that Genesis 2 is just simply adding details to genesis 1. It is not a recount of creation. I am sure you would recognize this in other books, but because it is the Bible you appear to have to use it to attack the credulity of it.

Did you know Delitzsch wrote another commentary in 1897 the New Commentary on Genesis? Apparently he changed his mind and went in for non literal 'analogical days' interpretation of Gen 1 as well as a local flood.

well I cant help that he went heretical after being right. Darwin at one time was an anglican as well before he became agnostic.

Based entirely on your misreading of nihil obstat and imprimatur.

Dont you ever tiore of thinking for me? I do know what the nihin obstat and imprematuer stand for wehen it comes to writings of doctrrinal stances. I was an RCC for 20 years and attended seminary.

You need to learn to recognise parable and figurative language in the bible through familiarity, the way the disciples learned, listening to Jesus teach. If you try to rely on a set of grammatical rules they will fail you, as they do now when you look at the parable of the good Samaritan.

Well let me see is 33 years as a beleiver and having read and listened to the NT over 500 times enough? Is taking greek language classes and NT survey classes as well as a comprehensive study of the gospels enough?? And for all you whining you have yet to show evidence that supports your theory that the account of the goods samaritan is a nonliteral parable instead of it being a true story Jesus recounted to drive home the point He was making. YOu can whine at me all you want just answer the questions somewhere in your posts.

No it doesn't.

Well for us earthlings it do!! I dont know how you define there was an evening and a morning afirst day... a second day... a third day on your home planet but here on earth when God said that He knew we would know it meant 1 solar day for each instance and that has come to be known as 24 hours, 1,444 minutes, or however m any seconds that is.

Not very successfully. Would you please show us how God created living species in Genesis, and how that contradicts evolution?

Okay I know trhis is difficult for this language is so beneath your superior intellect but here goes:

Gen 1:3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Now I know this is hard--but it says "and God said let there be..... and it was so!"" So God said ti and it was so!! Just that simple.

Now we can get into speciation and all that if you want as a result of the flood, but God made each kind after itself and ordered it to reproduce after its own kind.

And what do we call it when God communicates to us through a prophet like Moses?

OHHH!!! I know this!!!! When God gave moses a thing fromn the futrure it was called prophecy, and when He talked to HIm about present stuff it was called dialogue!!!

That might have been the way you would deal with the accumulation of human tradition, but Jesus went much deeper and overturned the literalist interpretation that gave rise to those 1600 rules.

You must be a liberal!! Cause you take the truth and turn it 180 degrees around!!! Actually Jesus was returning the Jews to a literal interpretation of Scripture and condemning them for their "interpretations" that produced things liket he 1600 Sabbath laws and alot fo the other garbage found inthe Mishnah and gemera! See He was returning the people back to Gods word minus mans opinions added! Just like He is doing to day! Even yoru atheist brethren in talkorigins recognize that Genesis one read as written can only mean 6 24 hour days! It wa the conmpromisers like Asa Grey and his spineless ilk that couldn't stay true to the word so they had to come up with the garbage like theistic evolution and the day/age theory, and attributing clearly delineated 24 hour days in to the same murkiness you are trying to throw it in!

The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath Mark 2:27. Does that contradict some man made rule? Or the literal reading of Exodus 20:8-11 that we rest because God rested on the seventh day and made it holy? Jesus said he and his father never stopped working John 5:17 "My Father is working until now, and I am working." What particular man made rule did that contradict? Or was he saying God did not literally stop working and have a rest on the seventh day?

So we stop going down all these diversionary rabbit trails-- start a thread on this and I will gladly teachyou what God meant when He restred on the seventh day and wqhat Jesus meant in John when He said Hois fatrher still works!

The same ten commandments. It is interesting that while the days of creation are given as an illustration for the Jewish sabbath in Exodus, when Moses repeats the ten commandments in Deuteronomy, he gives a completely different reason for it. Apparently, what was being taught was Sabbath observance, the six 'days' of creation and the freedom from captivity were simply illustrations. Which means there is nowhere that actually teaches a literal six day creation, it is simply used as a metaphorical illustration to teach something else.

This is why I have a hard time following your argumetns--you know little of the basic rules of speech and grammar!

 

[nolidad]

In answering Assyrians complaint about the 2 differing accounts of keeping the Sabbath from Exodus and Deuteronomy here is the answer:

First teh deuteronomy passage.

12Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

13Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
14But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 15And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

Now the Exodus passage:

8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


Now both containt he same parts with Deuteronomy adding a new thought.

It first must be remembewred that in Deut the Sabbath is to be kept as the Lord commanded (Ex. 20 passage) then the part about bewing deliverd is added-- and if yo ugo back and read about Moses before Pharoah it was because God wanted them to keep the Sabbaths that He tolds Pharoah to let the people go. So it is not a new reason to keep the Sabbath but a reminder of why God deliverdd them form Egypt-- So they may keep HIs sabbaths.

God did His creative work in 6 literal days and rested from Hios creative work on the seventh. This doe snot mean God never works again--It does mean He ios no longer creating anything as it says in Genesis 2

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

[Willtor]

So, in your world, there are 3 types of literature: factual historical narrative, parable, and fable? I am aware of other forms of literature. Also, I don't join groups. This isn't a game. This isn't "you are on one team and I am on another." This is serious.

First off why do you even make this assumption of me? It has nothing to do with the question I asked you? And in my world there are more than three types of literature. NOw let me repost teh question I asked you and see if you can have a whack at answring it instead of throwing diversions like this.

You were so quick to equate my use of "myth" with your use of "fable" but you made a distinction between "parable" and "fable." It was inconsistent and I jumped on it. I'm sorry.

In response to your question:
Well there is yoru problem-- you join with the group that considers this a made up story--while I accept it as a true account. What evidence do you present to prove this is just a nonliteral parable??

I don't think it's a parable. Nor do I think that, even if it were, that it would not be true. It is a true account, one way or another.

Also, just so I'm clear, I didn't join anybody. I love the TEs, here. They're great people with whom I would be thrilled to hang out. But I haven't joined anybody. When I see reason, I emphatically support it, but make no mistake: I may be convinced by people, but I this is not a team game. All those things I said about TEs go the same for the YECs and OECs, here.

So as I dop not isunderstand-- do you accept teh bible as the infallible inerrant written word of God?

I accept it as the infallible written word of God. I do not accept it as inerrant because the semantics I apply to "inerrant" are inconsistent with my views of Scripture. But when I capitalize the 'W' in "Word of God" I am talking about Jesus Christ. It seems to me there are a few contexts in which people use the term "word of God":

1. Jesus Christ
2. The Bible
3. Inspired Preaching or Teaching

The second two are appropriately called so insofar as they attest to the first. Jesus Christ is the truth. Apart from him, in a theological context, I don't know what truth is.

You are proposing a false dichotomy. I don't deal in such things.

Then you should reread your statement you wrote! For it is you who declared you beleived inthe genesis accoujnt of creation--just that it is not factual!.

Your post #947 6/7/06 7:39PM.

I believe creation occurred just as it says in the Bible. I just don't take it as a factual account. As to what Athanasius thought, I've posted a link and I'll leave it to lurkers to decide whether "the place which the holy Moses called in figure a Garden" indicates a literal, historical interpretation or a figurative one.

If you beleive creation occurred just as written inthe bible then you must beleive it is factual as written otherwise you do not beleive it occurred as written int he bible!

The bible is clear that creation occurred by God simply speaking things into existence in 6 24 hour days approximately 6,000 years ago. That is what is written. If you beleive in somoething else- then whatr you beleive is your interporetation of the words written and not the words that are written.

I don't think it is factual. And, yet, I think it is true. In order to progress beyond this, regardless of whether you agree with me, you must come to some understanding of what I think. To be sure, I think what the Bible says about a child being knit together in its mother's womb is true, but I don't think it's factual. Why don't I think it is factual? As far as I am aware, no doctor has ever located the knitting needles. Furthermore, an alternate process has been proposed by the medical community and has been confirmed in almost every first-world pregnancy. Now, in spite of its non-factual content, it is certainly true.

Yes, the Psalms are a particular form of literature that permits such figure. But at least you are aware of the possibility that a thing can be true and not factual. Once we are beyond this, there is the discussion as to the form of Genesis.

 

[nolidad]

Willtor writes:

Also, just so I'm clear, I didn't join anybody. I love the TEs, here.

That is an idiom. It means you agree withthose wqho have like minded ideas! I am going to have to have to write more carefully here for it seems that many of those I am debating against do not understand American idioms of speech. Now that is not a put down or insult. It is a fact in that manby times I have to explain what I say.

I accept it as the infallible written word of God. I do not accept it as inerrant because the semantics I apply to "inerrant" are inconsistent with my views of Scripture. But when I capitalize the 'W' in "Word of God" I am talking about Jesus Christ. It seems to me there are a few contexts in which people use the term "word of God":

1. Jesus Christ
2. The Bible
3. Inspired Preaching or Teaching

The second two are appropriately called so insofar as they attest to the first. Jesus Christ is the truth. Apart from him, in a theological context, I don't know what truth is.

I will accept that for here. I do not want t get in to lkengthy issues over inerrancy and what could be just semantics.

I don't think it is factual. And, yet, I think it is true. In order to progress beyond this, regardless of whether you agree with me, you must come to some understanding of what I think. To be sure, I think what the Bible says about a child being knit together in its mother's womb is true, but I don't think it's factual. Why don't I think it is factual? As far as I am aware, no doctor has ever located the knitting needles. Furthermore, an alternate process has been proposed by the medical community and has been confirmed in almost every first-world pregnancy. Now, in spite of its non-factual content, it is certainly true.

Your problem lies in that you are thinking with a 21st century view of phraseology that means far different. I accept it as true and factual given how the Hebrews used the phrase and how they understood it--not how we understand the phrase. I think you view literalists as these hyper rigid absolutists in linguistics-- beleive we are far from that!

Yes, the Psalms are a particular form of literature that permits such figure. But at least you are aware of the possibility that a thing can be true and not factual. Once we are beyond this, there is the discussion as to the form of Genesis.

Well I posted several web sites that show why Genesis 1 and 2 are not poetical or lyrics to a Hebrew hymn (though all of scripture could be and probably was canticled by the Hebrews).

Second you should find a web site that can parallel Genesis 1 and some Psalms and see that the construct and Hebrew meter is very very different.

Third off even though Genesis one is not constructed like Hebrew poetry, even if it was-- a poem doesn't make something nonfactual! Many of the psalms are true AND factual! What you need to establish is that the intent of Moses in editing the book of genesis, especially 1 and 2 was that he was using Hebraic figures of speech (so it would be true just not factual vis a vis your way of defining it) and he was not writing a factual narrative as the as the style of writing explicitly appears to make it.



ALERT! I SHALL BE LEAVING THIS WEEKEND FOR A WEEK LONG VACATION TO SEE MY SON, DAUGHTER IN LAW AND THE 2 MOST BEAUTIFUL GRANDDAUGHTERS IN THE UNIVERSE!!!! SO IF I HAVE SEEMED TO DROP OF THE EDGE OF THE EARTH--I AM DOING SOMETHING FAR BETTER!!!!!

 

[Assyrian]

Watch out for the elephants!

 

[Willtor]

Well, all that's okay. I'm done, here. You've got the last word.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry, I'm still going through his last few posts

I'll post them when I can.

Assyrian

 

[Gukkor]

...well, this seems to have gone on for awhile. What'd I miss?

 

[nolidad]

Well it is good to be back from vacation! I got to see my son ( youth pastor for a large church), daughter in law and my two beautiful grandbabies.

I see no one has written since I left. Maybe it si timet his thread is retired-- I don't know. But I would like to sum up what I have seen here.

1. As far as language goes in Genesis-- though both sides have offered qoutes- I have seen no credible evidence that Genesis 1&2 (up to 11 for trhat matter) is written in poetic style, and far more condemning that no matter what style it was written in- no evidence has been presented to show that the authors or editor (Moses) had intended for these passages to not be taken literally-- no matter what style of writing they were- which all my studies have shown tob e simple historic narrative much like chrionicles and Nehemiah is written in.

2. No ewvidence has been presetned to contradictr teh normal understanding of the phrase ... "and there was an evening and a morning a first... a second... etc." means anything else other than what it is written to mean--- a normal day not some undefined period of time.


3. Despite the protests to the contrary there has been no real solid evidence to substantiate the theory of evolution. Nested hierarchies are just not real proof--it is subjective and subject to great change in the evolutionary circles. No fossils support the jumpr from order tpo order and phyla to phyla. Despite thje cry thatr evolution is just concerned about species-- evolution cannot demonstrate simple single cellular life to the present day biodiversity! They have theories and circumstantial evidence but not empirical verified observable data tp shopw the changes they say evolution produced actually produced it.

4. Transitional fossils-- some fossils uncoverd are indeed unique and apper to support the needed transitions from one genra to another. But there is no chain to show and even wioth the supposwsed transiotnals there are other explanations for the supposed links other than evolution. the conclusions cannot be based on observed data for these are fossilized remains and conclusions are based more on ones bias than on actrual facts.


Iin conclusion-- after 98 pages (the lonegest debate I have been in-- I applaud and thank all contributors-- we still are at ground zero.

 

[steen]

3. Despite the protests to the contrary there has been no real solid evidence to substantiate the theory of evolution. Nested hierarchies are just not real proof--it is subjective and subject to great change in the evolutionary circles.

Allow me, please. Evolution is the change in alleles (genetic expression) between generations. We directly observe this, so the claim of no real evidence for evolution seems odd.

That, and the FACT that every year, tens of thousands of research studies are published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals with more evidence.

No fossils support the jumpr from order tpo order and phyla to phyla.

They won't necessarily have to. What we DO see are new phyla occurring at various times. And we have seen transitional between phyla as well. Talk.origin has an easily accessible example of a transition in trilobites, f.ex. And we certainly see fossils with changes in transitions between species, consistent with environmental clues aligned with the fossils.

Despite thje cry thatr evolution is just concerned about species--

'the cry" Are you trying to be belittling? Should I start talking about the "ranting ignorance" of YEC? I suggest we keep this civil and not derogatory.

evolution cannot demonstrate simple single cellular life to the present day biodiversity! They have theories and circumstantial evidence but not empirical verified observable data tp shopw the changes they say evolution produced actually produced it.

It is not clear what you are talking about. What do you consider volvox to be, f.ex? And what do you consider euglena as?

4. Transitional fossils-- some fossils uncoverd are indeed unique and apper to support the needed transitions from one genra to another. But there is no chain to show and even wioth the supposwsed transiotnals there are other explanations for the supposed links other than evolution.

"other explanations"? Like "goddidit"? Any other explanations that actually can be evidenced? Or are "other explanations"based more on sophistry and "just because I want it to be" examples?

the conclusions cannot be based on observed data for these are fossilized remains and conclusions are based more on ones bias than on actrual facts.

Well, THAT is a "just because I say so" postulation. care to prove that?

Iin conclusion-- after 98 pages (the lonegest debate I have been in-- I applaud and thank all contributors-- we still are at ground zero.

You should reset the page function. I only have 25 pages. Much faster to go through the tread that way. If you want to take it up again, I will gladly go through the tread and take a close look at the evidence presented from either side and we can proceed from there.

Did I mention that yes, I DO know and understand Evolution, the Scientific Method, and the supportive sciences! I hope you do as well, so it can be a fruitful interaction.

 

[nolidad]

steenwrites:

Allow me, please. Evolution is the change in alleles (genetic expression) between generations. We directly observe this, so the claim of no real evidence for evolution seems odd.

That, and the FACT that every year, tens of thousands of research studies are published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals with more evidence.

No that is what evolutionists say is what produces evolution. Every generation has changes in their alleles from their parents--otherwise we would be genetic identicals and we are not.

Cambridge dictionary---

Definition

evolve Show phonetics
verb [I or T]
to develop gradually, or to cause something or someone to develop gradually:
Humans evolved from apes.

We have yet to see the changes in generations produce a novelty that was not present in the species in the past or prencoded in the dna of the species. Despite the billions of mutations in man over the observed millenia we have yet to see any new thing in man like a wing or gills or fur or feathers. The theory of evolution has said this kind of change has occurred and yet has not proven it at all.

Peer reviewed journals are not evolution!! they are just ine evolutionist presenting his ideas to another evolutionist, they may debate points but the fundamental BELIEF (not fact) of evolution is questioned.

They won't necessarily have to. What we DO see are new phyla occurring at various times. And we have seen transitional between phyla as well. Talk.origin has an easily accessible example of a transition in trilobites, f.ex. And we certainly see fossils with changes in transitions between species, consistent with environmental clues aligned with the fossils.

between species?? So transitions in say cannes weithin cannes?? Ort are you saying we have empirical evidence of dinos becoming birds! I would like to see that!!! Talk origin just does a lot of talking but offers no real evidence--just speculation based on their agenda!!

Archeoptryx is not a transition-- inorder for something to be transitonal we need to see it link to predecessors and to future species--archy doesn't count. So don't many other supopossed transitions for they link with nothing or are so equivicable as to be ludicrous.

They won't necessarily have to. What we DO see are new phyla occurring at various times. And we have seen transitional between phyla as well. Talk.origin has an easily accessible example of a transition in trilobites, f.ex. And we certainly see fossils with changes in transitions between species, consistent with environmental clues aligned with the fossils.

No what we have seen was the "cambrian explosion" with its vast diversity of life and simple changes within the species-kept within the species. But no change on the order needed to take a fish-turn it to a rep[tile and turn it to a bird--that is the crux of the theory of evolution.

'the cry" Are you trying to be belittling? Should I start talking about the "ranting ignorance" of YEC? I suggest we keep this civil and not derogatory.

I suggest you do a study of Americasn idiomatic usages and you will see that the term "the cry" is jnot a belittling--but it did flush out your intolerance of YEC folk.

other explanations"? Like "goddidit"? Any other explanations that actually can be evidenced? Or are "other explanations"based more on sophistry and "just because I want it to be" examples?

Well why don't you google evolutionists who offer alternative ideas to the accepted view that things like the supposed "protfeaqthers" on some raptors found in China could just simply be juvenile raptors with downy fur just like newborn dolphins have hair n their bodies for a time.

Well, THAT is a "just because I say so" postulation. care to prove that?

Well how can I? If I show alternative theories for the supposed transitional fossils evolutionists say ar ethe smoking guns that "prove" evolution-- I will be simply dismissed because without any degree in biology I am going against the supposed "experts". Which by the way how does one prove that paleobiologists, and biologists go about becoming experts when they cannot conclusively prove theire suppositions on what the supposed transitionals really are?? Even Sirt Colin PAtterson who was an avid evolutionist himself said that evolution is a few pieces of information thrown into a carefully woven story!

Did I mention that yes, I DO know and understand Evolution, the Scientific Method, and the supportive sciences! I hope you do as well, so it can be a fruitful interaction.

Well I Am glad you do! I too understand the scientific method of proving theories, I have (from the continous redefining of evolution) only a marginal understanding of the most modern concepts of evolution (I had a good one but that was form the 70's and 80's and those definitions are passe')