Young Earth Vs. Old Earth

[marktheblake]

So, everything in the Bible must be taken 100 percent literally, even the parables. .

Obviously not, To make the claim that the bible must the taken literally is to deny figures of speech.

It would be more correct for someone to say that they take the bible seriously.

I am alleging that the Flood itself is an allegory.

where do you rule a line through your bible where the allegory ends and the factual history begins, and how do you make the determination?

 

[Willtor]

...

where do you rule a line through your bible where the allegory ends and the factual history begins, and how do you make the determination?

It's like anything else. You analyze the form of literature, consider the time and context in which it was written, compare and contrast it to contemporary literature, consult interpretations of it made over the millennia, etc. Often these means converge. When they don't, typically one shies away from strong stances.

Also, recall that we aren't talking about a line through the Bible, really. This is a process that has to be applied to each book -- and sometimes the same book contains more than one form of literature.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

It's like anything else. You analyze the form of literature, consider the time and context in which it was written, compare and contrast it to contemporary literature, consult interpretations of it made over the millennia, etc. Often these means converge. When they don't, typically one shies away from strong stances.

Also, recall that we aren't talking about a line through the Bible, really. This is a process that has to be applied to each book -- and sometimes the same book contains more than one form of literature.

Ill be gone all day today, I have school, then a Revival tent meeting to go to. =]]

You said, "analyze: the form of literature. Well, Each 'Day' in Genesis is literal.

Genesis 1 - "Day" - (Hebrew word) - 'Yom" = 24 literal hours. Follow by a literal night, evening, and morning. The context shows us it is a "Literal" day but according to you, it is a metaphorical picture. So, when GOD created all animals he did it "literally" in Genesis 1. And also suddenly not slowly over the course of billions of years. Read Isaiah 48:3-8

See ya, off to school and the XC practice then Revival then sleep and repeat the process. HHA

 

[Willtor]

Ill be gone all day today, I have school, then a Revival tent meeting to go to. =]]

You said, "analyze: the form of literature. Well, Each 'Day' in Genesis is literal.

Genesis 1 - "Day" - (Hebrew word) - 'Yom" = 24 literal hours. Follow by a literal night, evening, and morning. The context shows us it is a "Literal" day but according to you, it is a metaphorical picture. So, when GOD created all animals he did it "literally" in Genesis 1. And also suddenly not slowly over the course of billions of years. Read Isaiah 48:3-8

See ya, off to school and the XC practice then Revival then sleep and repeat the process. HHA

Don't misunderstand. Word studies are good and useful, too. But word studies are not the same as analyzing the form of literature.

Have a good meeting.

 

[marktheblake]

It's like anything else. .....

yes yes, that is all plainly obvious.

Now where did you draw your line and why.

 

[Willtor]

yes yes, that is all plainly obvious.

If this were obvious, you wouldn't have to ask what came next... unless this was a dig... in which case, well done. The important thing is to get "points" wherever you can.

Now where did you draw your line and why.

There is not a single line, and I think the style actually evolves in some cases. I'll talk about the larger of the creation accounts, though, since the line is quite clear.

The creation accounts and what follows are clearly distinct. The distinction is the liturgical nature of the days of creation. This doesn't mean they aren't historical, but it does mean that they _are_ poetic. This is why there are and have been so many interpretations of the creation accounts. There are commonalities in terms of doctrine that is drawn from them, but the intention of the author is understood in wildly different ways.

The larger is similar to the competing creation stories in its form. This leads me to think that God's revelation to Moses was one of a fundamental undermining of polytheism and idolatry through the creation narrative. That is, for anything any of the competing accounts could possibly say, the Genesis story judged them by pointing out that the true God, Yahweh, was yet above them. There's rather a lot in terms of connections, so let me know if this is the direction you want to go.

As understanding the author's construction of the account, to my understanding, the "framework interpretation" makes best (and most consistent) use of all of the elements of the story. There are other interpretations that lead more clearly to Judeo-Christian doctrines: e.g., the Sun and Moon are created mid-week -- not the first created beings and not the last -- so as to make it doubly clear that they are creatures and not worthy of worship. However, the doctrines are still there even if they are not as loud.

Although some theistic evolutionists (especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) have taken the account to be literal as well, I don't think it is literal. The structure of the world looks like an ancient near-eastern picture and I think trying to project it onto modern cosmology does both a disservice. I don't think I need to argue the latter. But as to the former, when ancient people were considering cosmology, it wasn't in response to the same questions we ask. That is, if you were to tell a non-philosophical people that the earth was round, I don't think they would ask you, "how do you know?" I think they would be more likely to ask, "what does that mean for us?" For example, the imagery of God as sitting on His throne in heaven and looking down on the earth was treated as exclusively figurative by Solomon during the dedication of the temple, I Kings 8:27 and II Chronicles 6:18. Thus, my concern with interpreting it literally is that we lose the message of God's place above other gods. I mean, we get it from other places in the Bible, but I think this was intended by Moses in the creation account as well. But since we don't think of the Sun as a god, the point is lost on modern people.

As such, I don't think there is anything to be gained by the literal interpretation, and there is much to be lost by it.

 

[JusSumguy]

Genesis 1 - "Day" - (Hebrew word) - 'Yom" = 24 literal hours.

The word is "Yown" and it's first definition is --> "day (as opposed to night)"

Follow by a literal night,

Night is "Layil" and it's first definition is --> night "As opposed to day."

evening, and morning.

Huh?

The context shows us it is a "Literal" day

Nope, literally it doesn't..... sorry. But I'll give you this, it can be twisted to say that.

but according to you, it is a metaphorical picture. So, when GOD created all animals he did it "literally" in Genesis 1. And also suddenly not slowly over the course of billions of years. Read Isaiah 48:3-8

Boy, I'm sorry, I don't see the connection there at all.

But there is this little tidbit.

But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thoushand years, and a thousand years as one day.

JusSayin


-

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

The word is "Yown" and it's first definition is --> "day (as opposed to night)"

Night is "Layil" and it's first definition is --> night "As opposed to day."

Huh?

Nope, literally it doesn't..... sorry. But I'll give you this, it can be twisted to say that.

Boy, I'm sorry, I don't see the connection there at all.

But there is this little tidbit.



JusSayin


-

Note to yourslef, "Yown" is the "greek" word for day, Hebrew is "Yom" both the greek and Hebrew basically have the same meanings. But you use it in the since of a 12 hour part day. Which cannot be logical because Genesis 1 says, "Night, Evening, Morning." = All parts of a day = 24 hour days. Plus the number of that day also which can be justified by Exodus 20:11. You have to understand the "context" and how it is justified by other verses of scripture. It would be senseless to say Genesis 1 is not literal. If it was just a figurative form of speech how did God create it? Like WILTOR says, He believes GOD created all living things, but if Genesis is just figurative how did He create mankind? Animals? Planets? You have misinterpreted Genesis 1, the text shows this:

Night, Evening, Morning, Number, Day...Night, Evening, Morning, Number, Day... and to say this is not a literal day is just not believing in what scripture says. If I look at a biography of the life of Martin Luther King Jr. and I read that it says, "Martin Luther gave a speech (at wherever he did) I could just know that was literal because it says HE GAVE A SPEECH, but I could go on to say that it was a figurative story and what he said symbolizes something later in his life. You know how nonsensical this is? Just take the WORD of GOD for what he says, I mean if Genesis is really all figurative, then I do not know why GOD himself says that he viewed Abel as a Martyr for the Faith he had. In the book of Luke. So, God viewed a mighty servant named Abel as a figurative character and he is also figuratively martyred for his faith? Seems very logical (sarcasm).

You do not see it because of the presuppositions based on your framework.

LOL, You use the ole ' thousands years as a day trick. Well you want to know the problem with this? This is the fallacy of begging the question, because it says a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Notice the words, "as a" this shows that the passage is a "simile" and this passage is not used in the literal sense. This passage shows if you read the next verse, is showing us that he is not bound by time. Many people use this passage out of context. If you read the whole chapter from verse one he talks about basically, evolutionists and then shows them that he is not bound by time. If you all would stop committing these prejudicial conjectures you would know half of the information I am saying right here.

Okay, now I have a question for you all.

Why did Jesus Christ die on the cross for mankind?

 

[Willtor]

Note to yourslef, "Yown" is the "greek" word for day, Hebrew is "Yom" both the greek and Hebrew basically have the same meanings. But you use it in the since of a 12 hour part day. Which cannot be logical because Genesis 1 says, "Night, Evening, Morning." = All parts of a day = 24 hour days. Plus the number of that day also which can be justified by Exodus 20:11. You have to understand the "context" and how it is justified by other verses of scripture. It would be senseless to say Genesis 1 is not literal. If it was just a figurative form of speech how did God create it? Like WILTOR says, He believes GOD created all living things, but if Genesis is just figurative how did He create mankind? Animals? Planets? You have misinterpreted Genesis 1, the text shows this:

Night, Evening, Morning, Number, Day...Night, Evening, Morning, Number, Day... and to say this is not a literal day is just not believing in what scripture says. If I look at a biography of the life of Martin Luther King Jr. and I read that it says, "Martin Luther gave a speech (at wherever he did) I could just know that was literal because it says HE GAVE A SPEECH, but I could go on to say that it was a figurative story and what he said symbolizes something later in his life. You know how nonsensical this is? Just take the WORD of GOD for what he says, I mean if Genesis is really all figurative, then I do not know why GOD himself says that he viewed Abel as a Martyr for the Faith he had. In the book of Luke. So, God viewed a mighty servant named Abel as a figurative character and he is also figuratively martyred for his faith? Seems very logical (sarcasm).

You do not see it because of the presuppositions based on your framework.

You should be aware that you have a framework of presuppositions of your own, and I dare say I am more aware of mine than you are of yours. Whether yom means 24 hours or not is not the point, here. If the account is literal, it is relevant. But you have yet to make an argument for that.

LOL, You use the ole ' thousands years as a day trick. Well you want to know the problem with this? This is the fallacy of begging the question, because it says a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Notice the words, "as a" this shows that the passage is a "simile" and this passage is not used in the literal sense. This passage shows if you read the next verse, is showing us that he is not bound by time. Many people use this passage out of context. If you read the whole chapter from verse one he talks about basically, evolutionists and then shows them that he is not bound by time. If you all would stop committing these prejudicial conjectures you would know half of the information I am saying right here.

Many people throughout history (including long before evolution was known) have used the passage in question with respect to Genesis. I don't see how it's a trick.

Okay, now I have a question for you all.

Why did Jesus Christ die on the cross for mankind?

I feel as though I've answered this.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

You should be aware that you have a framework of presuppositions of your own, and I dare say I am more aware of mine than you are of yours. Whether yom means 24 hours or not is not the point, here. If the account is literal, it is relevant. But you have yet to make an argument for that.



Many people throughout history (including long before evolution was known) have used the passage in question with respect to Genesis. I don't see how it's a trick.



I feel as though I've answered this.

No I base my presupposition on what the BIBLE says "Alone." Meaning I am using no "outside" information to influence the Bible like TE's do.

//////////I believe he died on the cross for our sins///////////

That is what you said, on the link you posted. What is "sin" and where did it come from?

 

[Willtor]

No I base my presupposition on what the BIBLE says "Alone." Meaning I am using no "outside" information to influence the Bible like TE's do.

Of course you do. How else do you avoid private interpretation?

//////////I believe he died on the cross for our sins///////////

That is what you said, on the link you posted. What is "sin" and where did it come from?

Sin is unfaith or disfellowship. It is separation from God. It came (and continues to come) from humans breaking fellowship with God.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Of course you do. How else do you avoid private interpretation?



Sin is unfaith or disfellowship. It is separation from God. It came (and continues to come) from humans breaking fellowship with God.

This "literal" view is also not my private interpretation. You base your presupposition on outside information, "Evolution," and the idea of millions of years. The literal view is not an interpretation but it is simply the way the Bible states GENESIS, Literally. Because the rest of the Bible lines up with a "literal" view. Not the figurative view.

sin

1   /sɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sin] Show IPA noun, verb, sinned, sin⋅ning.Use Sin in a Sentence

See web results for Sin

See images of Sin

–noun 1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam. 2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.



You see "sin" is not unfaith or disfellowship with God. That is a SIN yes, but what is the origins of sin? It did not enter through, "Mankind" or "Humans." Sin is a rebellion.

re⋅bel⋅lion

   /rɪˈbɛl

yən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-bel-yuh

n] Show IPA Use Rebellion in a Sentence

See web results for Rebellion

See images of Rebellion

–noun 1. open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler. 2. resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition. 3. the act of rebelling.


You see here in #2 that this applies to what Adam did? So how have "Humans" plural rebelled against God? when did it start? Biblically you cannot prove this. but with the "literal" view we have justification for JESUS' Death on the Cross as for you is to preach the Gospel is to preach it without foundational knowledge.

 

[Willtor]

This "literal" view is also not my private interpretation. You base your presupposition on outside information, "Evolution," and the idea of millions of years. The literal view is not an interpretation but it is simply the way the Bible states GENESIS, Literally. Because the rest of the Bible lines up with a "literal" view. Not the figurative view.

sin

1   /sɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sin] Show IPA noun, verb, sinned, sin⋅ning.Use Sin in a Sentence

See web results for Sin

See images of Sin

–noun 1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam. 2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.



You see "sin" is not unfaith or disfellowship with God. That is a SIN yes, but what is the origins of sin? It did not enter through, "Mankind" or "Humans." Sin is a rebellion.

re⋅bel⋅lion

   /rɪˈbɛl

yən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-bel-yuh

n] Show IPA Use Rebellion in a Sentence

See web results for Rebellion

See images of Rebellion

–noun 1. open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler. 2. resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition. 3. the act of rebelling.


You see here in #2 that this applies to what Adam did? So how have "Humans" plural rebelled against God? when did it start? Biblically you cannot prove this. but with the "literal" view we have justification for JESUS' Death on the Cross as for you is to preach the Gospel is to preach it without foundational knowledge.

Theology should not come from the dictionary. "Sin" literally means to miss the target (like in archery). Contextually, it's used as the opposite of faithfulness. The sense I get from the Bible is that being unfaithful to God is "missing the mark." This is why it seemed absurd to Paul and James that sinning was antithetical to the faith.

Second, I'm concerned by your statement that the literal interpretation is not an interpretation. I hope that I'm misunderstanding, here, and what you really mean is that the literal interpretation is merely obviously correct.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Theology should not come from the dictionary. "Sin" literally means to miss the target (like in archery). Contextually, it's used as the opposite of faithfulness. The sense I get from the Bible is that being unfaithful to God is "missing the mark." This is why it seemed absurd to Paul and James that sinning was antithetical to the faith.

Second, I'm concerned by your statement that the literal interpretation is not an interpretation. I hope that I'm misunderstanding, here, and what you really mean is that the literal interpretation is merely obviously correct.

1. "Sin" = Entered the World by a "Man" (Singular) - 'Why?' = Adam rebelled against God, not unfaithfulness in Jesus for this would mean "sin" would already have to exist in Adam's time which cannot be, for it would be a contradiction.

2. "Literal" Interpretation = correct - 'figurative' = man's opinion of things for there is no justification for the 'creation' nor sin nor restoration point and nor any foundational knowledge. "Literal" - supports the rest of the Bible along "with" the spiritual aspects of it, not just 'spiritual' only this is absurd.

3. Where in the Bible do you find that "mankind" or "humans" (plural) made death, suffering, and the etc.. come in the world by sin? If you believe this, then you are being arbitrary because you have an un-argued philosophical bias. You believe in evolution but believing in evolution claims "death" before sin, and you claim that death entered in through "Humans" (plural - in which you cannot prove.) which is arbitrary. What is your rational explanation for this?

 

[Willtor]

1. "Sin" = Entered the World by a "Man" (Singular) - 'Why?' = Adam rebelled against God, not unfaithfulness in Jesus for this would mean "sin" would already have to exist in Adam's time which cannot be, for it would be a contradiction.

2. "Literal" Interpretation = correct - 'figurative' = man's opinion of things for there is no justification for the 'creation' nor sin nor restoration point and nor any foundational knowledge. "Literal" - supports the rest of the Bible along "with" the spiritual aspects of it, not just 'spiritual' only this is absurd.

3. Where in the Bible do you find that "mankind" or "humans" (plural) made death, suffering, and the etc.. come in the world by sin? If you believe this, then you are being arbitrary because you have an un-argued philosophical bias. You believe in evolution but believing in evolution claims "death" before sin, and you claim that death entered in through "Humans" (plural - in which you cannot prove.) which is arbitrary. What is your rational explanation for this?

Response 1: St. John talks a little bit about this and calls Jesus the Incarnate Word. This Word existed before all created things. He ties it to the Genesis narrative when he uses the phrase, "In the beginning..." Also recall that Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I AM." The Word that proceeds from the Father has existed from before time. There is no contradiction in saying that Adam's unfaithfulness to God was unfaithfulness to God's Word.

Response 2: Ah, if this is what "figurative" means, then I do not hold a figurative interpretation. But I do hold a figurative interpretation in another sense.

Response 3: There is more than one point there. I'll respond to the first one: Whether it was one man or a community, or whether this describes a general tendency of humanity from the earliest days in which humans were capable of being faithful or unfaithful to God -- this is not important to me. I can understand if it is important to you since you insist on a literal interpretation. But I do not. The important thing to me is the doctrine that man was the transgressor and that this is the reason we struggle to keep our eyes on God.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Response 1: St. John talks a little bit about this and calls Jesus the Incarnate Word. This Word existed before all created things. He ties it to the Genesis narrative when he uses the phrase, "In the beginning..." Also recall that Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I AM." The Word that proceeds from the Father has existed from before time. There is no contradiction in saying that Adam's unfaithfulness to God was unfaithfulness to God's Word.

Response 2: Ah, if this is what "figurative" means, then I do not hold a figurative interpretation. But I do hold a figurative interpretation in another sense.

Response 3: There is more than one point there. I'll respond to the first one: Whether it was one man or a community, or whether this describes a general tendency of humanity from the earliest days in which humans were capable of being faithful or unfaithful to God -- this is not important to me. I can understand if it is important to you since you insist on a literal interpretation. But I do not. The important thing to me is the doctrine that man was the transgressor and that this is the reason we struggle to keep our eyes on God.

lol, I will show you the problems with your reasoning tomorrow sometime, i have school tomorrow, lol. =]

 

[marktheblake]

If this were obvious, you wouldn't have to ask what came next... unless this was a dig... in which case, well done. The important thing is to get "points" wherever you can.

If you are not drawing a line in the bible at a particular point that before is myth, and the after is true history, then you cannot be taken seriously.

You are just picking and choosing what you want to believe.

 

[metherion]

If you are not drawing a line in the bible at a particular point that before is myth, and the after is true history, then you cannot be taken seriously.

You are just picking and choosing what you want to believe.

And why not? Why can't we be taken seriously? I do not have such a line. There is no 'after book:verse everything is literally true but before that it is all myth'.

I am willing to concede that I do not know exactly what EVERYTHING in the Bible is supposed to be. I know what I believe it to be, based on God's Work, God's Word, and the reasoning and intelligence God has gifted me with, being made in His image. Some things I hold to hard and fast, knowing that if they are wrong then the entire basis for my faith is wrong, such as Jesus' death and resurrection. Some things I reject because God's Work screams out against them, such as a young earth. Some things I am perfectly willing to accept as having happened, but being mindful there is always another lesson.

I avoid falling into the trap of 'if my interpretation of this is wrong, my entire faith crumbles' on anything except the basis of my faith. Yes, God created everything. Yes, God made mankind to be like Him. Yes, man sinned. Yes, Jesus, who is fully divine and fully human came down to earth, died on the cross to redeem us from our sins, and resurrected from the dead to conquer death. Those things I believe as strongly as anything.

Furthermore, a hard and fast 'true history line' before which I dogmatically accept everything as myth and after i accept dogmatically everything as true literal history would be silly, because it would defeat the entire mindset I hold. The mindset I hold is NOT of dogmatic obedience to a text, but of thinking, reasoning, taking evidence left behind in God's Work to figure out the true meaning of God's Word.

As for the picking and choosing what you want to believe, I deny your claim outright. For me to 'pick and choose' what I wanted to believe, there would have to be a hard and fast line of things to believe in that I am picking from, now? Hence such terms as 'Cafeteria Christian'. However, with TE vs YEC, there is no such hard and fast set of beliefs. I believe in TE because I do not think the Bible was meant to convey science. You believe in YEC because you do. Does that mean I am picking and choosing what to believe from the Bible? No. It means I do not think the Bible even carries that particular message.

Metherion

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

This is a question for Wiltor only.

You say God created all that is in the universe (i.e. planets, animals, humans, etc.) but if Genesis is a metaphorical book in which describes the animals we see today, In what way did God create Creation (i.e. the planets, animals, humans, etc.) ? How did God create all the animals and humans if Genesis were non-literal allegorical story?

 

[Mick116]

Why don't people just take GOD's word as it is? Because it is a literal interpretation. Because whenever he stated in Genesis he created all the animals that reproduce 'after their kind' you see different kinds of species within dogs but not evolved dogs. You see a 'poodle' but guess what it is still a dog. You take humans when were reproduce over time and there is different races of people they are not evolved beings. Were all still humans. If this were not literal what would be the basis for all of this things? If the account of creation of the planets were just metaphorical on what basis do we have to say God created them? If 'Adam' is nothing but a metaphorical character to describe the 'spiritual' realm only, what basis is there for the Physical? A non-literal account of Genesis cannot account for all the other verses that claim God created the earth literally. Read Jeremiah 10 and 17.

The problem with taking many parts of the bible as scientifically inerrant is that the purpose of the Bible was never to teach us science: whether it be quantum physics, or the origins of life.

But if one is consistent, a literalist needs to accept that the entire universe is 6000 years old, was created in 6 literal days, that the sun revolves around the earth (i.e. literally "rises" & moves across the sky), that the stars are attached to a solid firmament above the earth, that light was created before its source, that the earth is flat, that heaven is "up" and hell is "down", and that a mustard seed is literally the smallest seed in the world. These are all taught or implied in scripture, and are all demonstratably false.

But the problem evaporates when one realises that the Bible was written according to its human authors' own knowledge of science and natural history, and that such facts are incidental to the spiritual or theological messages being communicated by the Holy Spirit. As someone once said, "scripture tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go".

Read "I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution" for a fuller account of this idea.