Is modern science part of the context of Genesis?

[Papias]

Willtor wrote:

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

They are pretty specific in their insistence that all "effects" have a natural "cause."

You have quoted two paragraphs that are talking about different things. One is methodological naturalism, and the other is philosophical naturalism. These are not the same.

Science works with methodological naturalism because that is the extent of its power. But that's decidedly different from saying that science insists that God does not operate supernaturally in the world. That would be philosophical naturalism, the second paragraph.

Yep. It's worth pointing out that all of us, regardless of our view of origins or even of science in general, act in accordance to methodological naturalism. That means that we look for clear natural explanations first, before any supernatural cause. If we find one, we stop there. That's the same as science (in fact, science's ability ends there). If a scientist claims that a supernatural cause cannot have happened, or that God does't exist, then she's no longer talking science, nor talking as a scientist.

For example, if you get in your car and it doesn't start, you might check the battery, see if you are using the right key, etc. You do all that before you perform an exorcism - even if you firmly believe that there are demons that stop cars from starting. That goes for a lightswitch not working, or hearing footsteps, or whatever.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[Percivale]

In response to Calminian, I've read more YEC material than all other sources for origins science combined. I grew up with Creation magazine and still get Acts and Facts. It was the RATE project, done by YECs, that convinced me the earth is old, because their explanation was so unsatisfactory.

 

[KWCrazy]

. It was the RATE project, done by YECs, that convinced me the earth is old, because their explanation was so unsatisfactory.

What was wrong with God's explanation?
Why do you doubt Exodus 20:11?

 

[Papias]

KW, do you doubt Ex 19:4?

 

[KWCrazy]

KW, do you doubt Ex 19:4?

Can you not distinguish between obvious metaphors and declarative statements? Exodus 20:11 is one of the ten great commandments upon which the law is founded; written by the had of God on a stone tablet. The other is an obvious metaphoric device to remind people of the safe delivery from slavery.

By your analogy the resurrection could be a metaphor as well, so do you believe Christ actually rose from the dead? Seriously, I expect such posts from atheists, not Christians. We're supposed to have a greater understanding of the Scriptures.

 

[Papias]

Can you not recognize the obvious metaphorical language in Genesis? Even you must recognize that the snake is Satan - even though Satan is never mentioned in Genesis, the parallelism of Genesis 1, and so on.

Genesis 1 and 2 are as clearly metaphorical as Exodus 19:4. Are you going to claim that Christ didn't rise from the dead because Exodus 19:4 is a metaphor?

In Christ -
Papias

 

[KWCrazy]

Can you not recognize the obvious metaphorical language in Genesis?

Can you find me a consensus among Hebrew scholars that Genesis 1 is metaphorical? Are there, in fact, Nine commandments because number four is a meta-four?

Even you must recognize that the snake is Satan - even though Satan is never mentioned in Genesis,

That has absolutely nothing to do with the declarative statements in Genesis 1 or the fact that the early chapters of Genesis are referenced as fact throughout the Bible, including by Jesus.

Genesis 1 and 2 are as clearly metaphorical as Exodus 19:4.

You make these claims but who believes you? Where is your evidence in the Scriptures? How can you reconcile the absolute definition of three calendar days as numbered, individual days with numbers and sunrise/sunset? How can you justify that with Jesus teaching that the flood actually happened, and Adam, Eve, Cain and Able were real people?Beyond that, if the days are eras, it STILL could not be twisted to agree with evolution or old earth beliefs.

Are you going to claim that Christ didn't rise from the dead because Exodus 19:4 is a metaphor?

I'm not the one claiming that historical teaching is metaphorical. I'm not the one using metaphorical passages to undermine the credibility of Scriptural facts. The Bible teaches a young earth and a six day creation. there's not other possible way to spin it. Scriptures and science disagree. I believe that is intentional. Faith is hard, but the reward is out of this world.

Peace
KWCrazy

 

[Papias]

KW wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Can you not recognize the obvious metaphorical language in Genesis?

Can you find me a consensus among Hebrew scholars that Genesis 1 is metaphorical?

Yes. Here is one overview, others are similarly available.

This article examines the understandings of the creation accounts in
Genesis 1–3 found in various early Jewish writings including rabbinical,
philosophical and mystical/apocalyptic works. In general, Jewish writers
distinguished various levels of meaning, including an allegorical as well as
a literal or historical level. At the historical level of interpretation, however,
certain aspects of the narrative were taken as symbolic or metaphorical,
and a purely ‘literalistic’ understanding was not deemed natural to the
language ​

https://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/serve_pdf_free.php?filename=SCB+12-2+Marston.pdf

Even you must recognize that the snake is Satan - even though Satan is never mentioned in Genesis,

That has absolutely nothing to do with the declarative statements in Genesis 1

Sure it does - the metaphor runs all through it, as shown above and as you can see yourself from the parallelistic structure, and other indicators. The fact that declarative statements are used is consistent with non-symbolic lanaguage as well, since declarative statements are used in both literal and non-literal text.

or the fact that the early chapters of Genesis are referenced as fact throughout the Bible, including by Jesus.

Of course they are referred to - because they are important. That doesn't mean they are literal any more than when my child accidentally breaks a window, and I say "I don't think we can put humpty-dumpty together again", the child knows that I'm not suggesting that humpty-dumpty is a literally true story. It's simply a well-known story that illustrates my point. They aren't referenced as literally true "facts".

Genesis 1 and 2 are as clearly metaphorical as Exodus 19:4.

You make these claims but who believes you? Where is your evidence in the Scriptures?

I don't make up that claim - I simply repeat what the scholars say, including the Jewish scholars referenced above as you asked.

How can you reconcile the absolute definition of three calendar days as numbered, individual days with numbers and sunrise/sunset?

It's a poetic construction, as shown by the 1 - 4, 2-5, 3-6 parallel poetic structure, which wouldn't work without having days. Nor would it have served to bring order to the week by setting up a week schedule to live by if the days hadn't been put in there. It's not something that is a challenge to "reconcile", but rather the days is another indication that this is to be read figuratively.

How can you justify that with Jesus teaching that the flood actually happened, and Adam, Eve, Cain and Able were real people?

He didn't. As explained above, he did reference these stories, and of course that doesn't indicate the stories are literal history any more than my mention of humpty-dumpty.

Beyond that, if the days are eras, it STILL could not be twisted to agree with evolution or old earth beliefs.

Of course not - because it's not a literal history. That means that things don't have to be in any specific order. Ancient Jewish and Christian readers recognized this too, since it is of course nonsensical to have the plants before the sun exists, and so on.

Are you going to claim that Christ didn't rise from the dead because Exodus 19:4 is a metaphor?

I'm not the one claiming that historical teaching is metaphorical.

Neither am I. I'm the one claiming that a metaphorical teaching is metaphorical (Genesis), just like you are claiming that a metaphorical teaching is metaphorical (Exodus 19).

The upshot is that if you claim that Genesis is literal, without metaphor, then you remove the doctrine of original sin, since Genesis, read literally, simply doesn't have it. The snake would be just a snake, there would be no punishment of hell, and no need for salvation. Reading Genesis as only literal destroys Christianity.

I'm not the one using metaphorical passages to undermine the credibility of Scriptural facts. ....
Peace
KWCrazy

Isn't that exactly what you are doing with Exodus 19? I mean, if we are going to spin Exodus 19 to be a metaphor, then where do we stop? Does that mean that your whole Bible is metaphor? Why not?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[KWCrazy]

Yes. Here is one overview, others are similarly available.

From your source:
"This paper does not intend to argue that there are discernible ‘correct’ interpretations based on the Hebrew language; nor does it suggest supporting all the particular symbolic or figurative understandings various commentators took. What it seeks to show is how far different writers introduced symbolic or metaphorical understandings into their interpretations of the text at the ‘literal’ or historical level of meaning.

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’<< Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford

There is no shortage of people trying to re-interpret Genesis to conform with the belief in long ages and evolutionary development. The question is not what modern day scholars teach, but what the Scriptures themselves teach.

If Genesis is a metaphor than there are only 9 Commandments. Number 4 MUST be a metaphor as well.

If Genesis is a metaphor then those mentioned in it were not real. However, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are referred to in 15 other books of the Bible. Why would they have such a prominent place in history if they were not historical??

If Genesis is a metaphor then why did Jesus teach as if it were literally true; referencing Adam and Eve, Noah, Cain and Able, and the accuracy of what Moses wrote.


If Genesis is a metaphor then Paul lied in Romans 5 because the fall of man never happened. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

The simple fact is, only the outside influences give credence to a metaphoric interpretation (rejection) of Genesis. If one uses ONLY the Scriptures to interpret the Scriptures, there is no possible way to discount the historical truth of Genesis.

We will probably never agree on this because you and I have different interpretations of reality. To me, none of this is real. Our real existence will only be revealed to us when we come to meet the Lord. This is nothing more than a temporary construction.

 

[Willtor]

Oh, noes! The James Barr disease is catching. You know that if Barr meant what you are taking him to mean, he's not the expert you think he is.

 

[KWCrazy]

Oh, noes! The James Barr disease is catching. You know that if Barr meant what you are taking him to mean, he's not the expert you think he is.

Your ad hominem attack on his qualifications do not change his expertise. You might note that he is NOT a believer.
James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. It was only the perceived need to harmonise with the alleged age of the earth which led people to think anything different—it was nothing to do with the text itself.
source

In fact, the only writings I have seen from anyone professing to be Hebrew Scholars and bearing the credentials came after the letter was written, not before. If any of his contemporaries believed otherwise, theirs was not a prevailing opinion.

 

[Willtor]

Your ad hominem attack on his qualifications do not change his expertise. You might note that he is NOT a believer.
James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. It was only the perceived need to harmonise with the alleged age of the earth which led people to think anything different—it was nothing to do with the text itself.
source

In fact, the only writings I have seen from anyone professing to be Hebrew Scholars and bearing the credentials came after the letter was written, not before. If any of his contemporaries believed otherwise, theirs was not a prevailing opinion.

It isn't ad hominem: His quote is only meaningful if he's an expert. He isn't an expert if he means what you're taking him to mean.

 

[Papias]

KW wrote:

Papias wrote (after being asked for a Jewish source saying that Genesis is not literal) :

Yes. Here is one overview, others are similarly available.

( ..... )

From your source:

"This paper does not intend to argue that there are discernible &#8216;correct&#8217; interpretations based on the Hebrew language; nor does it suggest supporting all the particular symbolic or figurative understandings various commentators took. What it seeks to show is how far different writers introduced symbolic or metaphorical understandings into their interpretations of the text at the &#8216;literal&#8217; or historical level of meaning.

First, thanks for taking the time to read some of the paper. Next, notice that in context, the paragraph above is saying that all metaphorical interpretations may not be correct, and that this paper is not going to say that one is correct. - Of course it won't. That would be a pretty long and presumptuous point. So the paragraph above doesn't change the overall point, which is that a literalistic reading doesn't fit the text itself.

The paper does show that a literal interpretation is incorrect - which is the point I was making. Remember, it pointed out that a purely literalistic understanding is not natural to the text.

If one uses ONLY the Scriptures to interpret the Scriptures, there is no possible way to discount the historical truth of Genesis.

Simply false. As shown above, it is the text itself that shows Genesis to be metaphorical - according to both Jewish scholars and by simply sitting down and reading it. Remember what I wrote in post #28: It's a poetic construction, as shown by the 1 - 4, 2-5, 3-6 parallel poetic structure, which wouldn't work without having days.......

Let's keep track of our topics. That one can be A.

B:

Probably, so far as I know......

Oh my, it looks like you've been hooked by Bob Ryan's Bob Barr "quote". You are aware, I hope, that this has been shown multiple times to be an improper quote, which doesn't help your point. If you are unaware of this, please look at other threads where this was discussed, or if you can't do that, I can show some to you.

C:

If Genesis is a metaphor than there are only 9 Commandments. Number 4 MUST be a metaphor as well.

Why? I don't see any reason that should follow. Does the fact that Ex. 19:4 a metaphor mean that there are only 9 commandments? Why not?

D:

If Genesis is a metaphor then why did Jesus teach as if it were literally true; referencing Adam and Eve, Noah, Cain and Able, and the accuracy of what Moses wrote.

I explained in post #28 that simply mentioning a story doesn't mean someone is claiming it to be literally true. Did you not read that?

Also, are you unaware of the view of Adam as a literal person, a transitional ape, which is consistent with evolution and Genesis?

E:

If Genesis is a metaphor then Paul lied in Romans 5 because the fall of man never happened.

No, as shown in post #28 (which we can re-post for your convenience, if you like), a literal Genesis makes Paul a liar. A literal genesis removes the fall itself. Thanks for mentioning Paul - you can see that Paul too joins me in showing you that a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect. Now you are arguing against Paul as well. Note also that Paul mentioning Adam is consistent with the Adam as transitional ape approach, which I can explain if you don't already know it.


F:

Papias wrote:

Even you must recognize that the snake is Satan - even though Satan is never mentioned in Genesis,

I still didn't hear a relevant response to this.


G:

Papias wrote

Are you going to claim that Christ didn't rise from the dead because Exodus 19:4 is a metaphor?

I'm not the one claiming that historical teaching is metaphorical.

Neither am I. I'm the one claiming that a metaphorical teaching is metaphorical (Genesis), just like you are claiming that a metaphorical teaching is metaphorical (Exodus 19).

I didn't see a response to this.

Papias wrote in post #28

The upshot is that if you claim that Genesis is literal, without metaphor, then you remove the doctrine of original sin, since Genesis, read literally, simply doesn't have it. The snake would be just a snake, there would be no punishment of hell, and no need for salvation. Reading Genesis as only literal destroys Christianity.

I didn't see a response to this.



In Christ-

Papias