Evolution vs. The Bible

[MKJ]

There is really no question what the narrative says or that it was written as an historical narrative.

Um, yes, there is.

Your assumption is just that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Um, yes, there is.

Your assumption is just that.

That's simply not true, there is nothing indicating figurative language. There is an a priori naturalistic assumption that passes for an alternative interpretation but it's not.

 

[MKJ]

That's simply not true, there is nothing indicating figurative language. There is an a priori naturalistic assumption that passes for an alternative interpretation but it's not.

Actually I make no assumption about whether it is meant allegorically or otherwise. It could be either, or both, or something else, is my starting point.

Something doesn`t need to use figurative language to be an allegory.

The fact is that it has always been interpreted allegorically, from well before the Christian period. So there isn`t really a question of whether that is a reasonable thought.

The only question is whether it should also be read as a historical narrative or natural history.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually I make no assumption about whether it is meant allegorically or otherwise. It could be either, or both, or something else, is my starting point.

Something doesn`t need to use figurative language to be an allegory.

The fact is that it has always been interpreted allegorically, from well before the Christian period. So there isn`t really a question of whether that is a reasonable thought.

The only question is whether it should also be read as a historical narrative or natural history.

The operative word there is history and the only question is whether or not it's actual history and there can be no question that Genesis is an historical narrative. What's more, with an historical narrative the literal interpretation is always preferred. Finally any figurative language in the Scriptures are usually indicated by a 'like' or 'as' in the phrase or something definitive in the context indicating a direct comparison.

You have none of that in the Genesis account of creation, there is nothing figurative or allegorical about it. You don't get to 'interpret' passages that indicate God's power being expressed miraculously as you please. The author gets to do that and the text couldn't be more explicit and what is more, the New Testament confirms the literal history of Genesis every time it's discussed.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[MKJ]

The operative word there is history and the only question is whether or not it's actual history and there can be no question that Genesis is an historical narrative. What's more, with an historical narrative the literal interpretation is always preferred. Finally any figurative language in the Scriptures are usually indicated by a 'like' or 'as' in the phrase or something definitive in the context indicating a direct comparison.

You have none of that in the Genesis account of creation, there is nothing figurative or allegorical about it. You don't get to 'interpret' passages that indicate God's power being expressed miraculously as you please. The author gets to do that and the text couldn't be more explicit and what is more, the New Testament confirms the literal history of Genesis every time it's discussed.

Have a nice day
Mark

Why do you think it is preferable to interpret literally? The early Christians didn't think so - they thought that was the lowest form of interpretation.

All you do is restate again and again your own assumptions, most of which aren't historically accurate. It is rather ironic that you want to make Genesis historical when you won't even accept the real history we can see clearly.

In any case, if you assume the answer to the question under discussion, there really isn't any point in talking about it with you. You won't convince anyone by saying "obviously it is history". It isn't obvious to anyone else, and you haven't made a case for it.

 

[Papias]

Achilles wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

I guess I can't get my head around seeing God's word as dimished, removable, or lesser if it is symbolic. I feel sorry for anyone who does - it really misses a huge amount of richness in our Holy Scripture.

​

That's because you're not understanding what I'm saying! I'm saying that if you interpret Genesis 1-11 to be symbolic, then you really have no idea what is symbolic and what isn't in Scripture. It just becomes meaningless and we can argue over whether or not something happened (or is going to happen) all day!

You just proved my point. You see symbolic scripture as lesser, meaningless, etc. Why would anyone do that? This is clearly the main point of our discussion.

Originally Posted by Papias

Almost the whole freakin' book of Revelation is symbolic. Is the fact that it is so big mean that the book of Revelation is somehow diminished? Should we remove as Martin Luther said, calling it the "ravings of a madman"?

When it's symbolic it indicates it as such. And I would disagree that "almost the whole book of Revelation is symbolic."

So every symbol in Revelation is indicated as such? Shall we go through them?

And I earlier asked where it said the Good Samaritan was symbolic. Do you have a verse saying it is?

What about Ps 139, which says that God makes babies by knitting? Can you point to another verse that says God uses cell division and mitosis?

Or gravity. Is gravity false because Genesis 1 says that God put the moon up there, instead of it being held up by gravitational orbit?

And others, too, if you'd like.

Originally Posted by Papias

As I pointed out by copying your exact words, you are already there by rejecting a hyperliteral reading of Jesus' parables and many other places. Do you already take the whole Bible symbolically? If not, then you yourself disprove your statement above.

The simple point is that if you interpret Genesis in a symbolic fashion then we really have no clue what to take literally and what to take symbolically in Scripture. Was Christ's walking on water a symbol? Or did it literally happen?

And as I pointed out before, if you are going to say that, they you have already done so, due to all the other symbolic speech we both agree on.

Originally Posted by Papias

Symbolic speech is not always obvious - you can see that in your own posts on this thread. Such as the mustard seed, where you first said it was literal, then said it wasn't by saying it mean domesticated seeds, then saying that it could be hyperbole. That's OK, since digging deeper into God's word is a good thing.

It is literal and is talking about domesticated seeds (!). Some statements that use "all" in Scripture can be hyperbole!

Newsflash: "Hyperbole" is the opposite of "Literal".

Originally Posted by Papias

OK, then why did you say that how we find out is not the above, but instead is by seeing if another passage says it is an interpretation? Or, are you saying that you no longer use your previous method? Here is what you said, back on page 2:

I didn't. Here is my exact statement from page 2:


​

Originally Posted by Achilles6129

When Scripture uses parables it makes it plain, that's what I'm saying. It clearly indicates as such. For example, we know that God did not literally bear anyone on eagles' wings because that is clearly not recorded in Exodus; he's only using a metaphor. However, if God in fact did fly Israel out of Egypt on an eagle and then later say "I bore you on eagles' wings" then obviously that would be a literal statement

​

The reason why we know the statement is simply a metaphor is because the narrative makes it clear how Israel came out of Egypt. And it wasn't on eagles' wings!

Yes, that was you second position. I showed the whole conversation right there on post #57, where, when asked for a verse showing that Ex 19 was symbolic, you gave Deut, then later posted your second position above. Look, you can just say that your first position was wrong if you like, but pretending you didn't say it is not a good plan when everything is recorded on the internet.

Originally Posted by Papias

OK, so it sounds like we agree here, that Christ could be using hyperbole about the mustard seed, or meaning something he didn't say (like dometsticated seeds) - either way, it's not to be read literally, and we both see that.
​

It can certainly be read literally. The mustard seed was the smallest domesticated seed in all of Palestine.


I don't see a problem with taking it literally at all.

Because that's not what he said. And you agreed with that point when you objected to the idea that it wasn't the smallest of seeds.

Christ simply means that it is the smallest of all seeds that human beings use.

"Don't listen to what I say, Listen to what I mean." ? Of course that's what he means. We agree on that. The fact that you say "means" shows that you too can see that the literal text is not what he means.

Originally Posted by Papias

Obviously there isn't, when millions, perhaps most, Chistians see symbolic speech in both.

Oh, most modern Christians believe in evolution. But that's not because the Bible talks about it or because it can be read into the Bible at all; that's just because of the culture they live in.

.... so that's why some early Christians had already recognized it as symbolic? Or do you still deny their existence, and instead rely on the Catholic Churches position from the middle ages?

Originally Posted by Papias

Not just all those Christians, but Bible Scholars, theologians, leaders in many churches, both Protestant and Catholic as well, in addition to some Early Christians. If there was a difference, then you wouldn't have that kind of support, both ancient and modern, for seeing the opening chapters of Genesis as symbolic speech.

​

You don't. Most everyone took Genesis 1-11 literally before evolution came along. That's why it's such a big deal.

Like the early church? I've already pointed out that some early Christians took it as symbolic, such as Augustine and Origen. Yes, the Catholic church in aroun AD 1000-1400 took it literally, and I guess it warms my heart that you put so much stock in the old Catholic Church, but sorry, history shows that it wasn't considered literal by the whole early church. In fact, you haven't show me that people in the early church took it literally, though I already know some did (by reading their writings).

In Jesus name-

Papias

 

[gluadys]

I think a lot of the tension around the word "literal" comes from people not being on the same page as to what that description of a text means.

Papias, Achilles: just what does it mean to each of you to say you interpret a text "literally". Or choose not to interpret a text "literally".

Can we unpack different levels of meaning in the term "literal" itself?

To give an example: many people associate the term "literal" with "it really happened". But that is not essential to the meaning of "literal". A text may have a literal meaning even if what it describes never really happened.

 

[Achilles6129]

You just proved my point. You see symbolic scripture as lesser, meaningless, etc. Why would anyone do that? This is clearly the main point of our discussion.

No, it's not meaningless at all. One of the main points of our discussion has been your misunderstanding of the things that I say. Whether this is done deliberately or not is something which only you know.

So every symbol in Revelation is indicated as such? Shall we go through them?

Nearly all of them are, yes.

And I earlier asked where it said the Good Samaritan was symbolic. Do you have a verse saying it is?

It's a parable put forth in answer to a question. It could have literally happened or it may not have; it doesn't really matter.

What about Ps 139, which says that God makes babies by knitting? Can you point to another verse that says God uses cell division and mitosis?

We come back to the fact that you are simply deliberately being obtuse. Either God means what he says in Scripture or he does not; claiming that we cannot take Psalm 139 literally because it doesn't use the words "cell division" and "mitosis" is the height of absurdity.

Or gravity. Is gravity false because Genesis 1 says that God put the moon up there, instead of it being held up by gravitational orbit?

And others, too, if you'd like.

Again, you're just showing the absurdity of your approach to Scripture at this point.

Newsflash: "Hyperbole" is the opposite of "Literal".

I wasn't saying what you thought I was saying by your reply.

Yes, that was you second position. I showed the whole conversation right there on post #57, where, when asked for a verse showing that Ex 19 was symbolic, you gave Deut, then later posted your second position above. Look, you can just say that your first position was wrong if you like, but pretending you didn't say it is not a good plan when everything is recorded on the internet.

No, there wasn't any sort of switch of positions, I was simply making a point. My position has always been the same throughout: God did not bring the Israelites out of Egypt by flying them out on an eagle, so we can be certain that the "eagles' wings" passage is a metaphor.

Because that's not what he said. And you agreed with that point when you objected to the idea that it wasn't the smallest of seeds.

You're not paying attention at all! Notice what the parable says:

"31 He presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field (!!!! - Achilles6129); 32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the [r]air come and nest in its branches.”" Mt. 13:31-33 (NASB)

The man sowed the mustard seed in his field (!). It's a parable about domesticated seeds! The mustard seed is the smallest of all domesticated seeds! That dynamites your interpretation of the text.

.... so that's why some early Christians had already recognized it as symbolic? Or do you still deny their existence, and instead rely on the Catholic Churches position from the middle ages?

The vast majority of people throughout church history have taken Genesis as a literal account of a six-day creation and a global flood. Just because a few people have claimed otherwise is meaningless. The vast majority interpreted it that way until evolution came around.

 

[Achilles6129]

I think a lot of the tension around the word "literal" comes from people not being on the same page as to what that description of a text means.

Papias, Achilles: just what does it mean to each of you to say you interpret a text "literally". Or choose not to interpret a text "literally".

To interpret a text literally is to find the literal meaning of the text. What Papias does (as we have seen with his replies) is to play word games with the text and then claim that if the text doesn't literally line up with what he claims the words mean then the text is false and so we can make anything in the Bible out to mean whatever at all. Words simply convey a meaning.

So the point is clear: if evolution is meant to be read into Genesis, then the Bible can really mean anything that we want. Papias has really been demonstrating my point in his replies because he basically shows how his approach to the text completely destroys the Scriptures. We really don't know what anything means anymore because it now all becomes simply subject to our own interpretation.

To give an example: many people associate the term "literal" with "it really happened". But that is not essential to the meaning of "literal". A text may have a literal meaning even if what it describes never really happened.

Then the text would be literally false! Either God means what he says or he does not; if God is talking about something that never happened and leading us to believe that it did, then God is lying to us!

 

[gluadys]

To interpret a text literally is to find the literal meaning of the text.

That's begging the question. What does "literal" mean?

So the point is clear: if evolution is meant to be read into Genesis, then the Bible can really mean anything that we want.

Let's be clear here. TEs do not claim that evolution should be read into Genesis or any part of the bible. No more than astrophysics or the geography of North America or the existence of penguins and polar bears, much less any form of modern technology. Nothing undiscovered or uninvented at the time the bible was written is to be read into the text of the bible.

To give an example: many people associate the term "literal" with "it really happened". But that is not essential to the meaning of "literal". A text may have a literal meaning even if what it describes never really happened.

Then the text would be literally false!

Your answer tells me that you do accept that "literal" means "it really happened" (in history, as described).

But when studying literature, "literal" does not have that meaning. The actual meaning of "literal" when referring to a text is "the words are to be understood in their most common everyday meaning, with no sense of figurative meaning."

IOW, the literal meaning of "dog" is "dog" and the literal meaning of "star" is "star" with no suggestion that "dog" really means "an ugly woman" or "star" really means "a famous actor". The latter are metaphorical meanings, not literal meanings.

Now, the point here is that both those literal meanings and those metaphorical meanings have nothing to do with whether the text they are in refers to some real dog, star or person, or to any real event.

When a child learns the song "Twinkle, twinkle little star..." the literal meaning is that it refers to a star in the sky--because that is the most common meaning and the root meaning on which any metaphor is based. And it would not matter if the child in question is a fictional character in a fictional story.

Similarly, in any story about a dog, such as Lassie, Rin tin tin or Old Yeller, "dog" means the common four-footed animal. That is the literal meaning, even though none of these stories refers to actual dogs or actual events.

So your meaning would be clearer if instead of referring to events you believe really happened, you assert that they are "historical" rather than "literal".

I think you will discover that TEs will often agree with you that certain events happened in history. But the question is whether the text of scripture describes those historical events literally or metaphorically. That is a very different issue than whether or not they really happened.

Either God means what he says or he does not; if God is talking about something that never happened and leading us to believe that it did, then God is lying to us!

Very often when we tell a young child that they are soon going to have a baby brother or sister, we tell them that the baby will be growing "in mummy's tummy". Strictly speaking we are giving that child false information by saying "tummy" instead of "womb" or "uterus"; but we do it because we know the child has not learned much of female anatomy yet and those terms would be meaningless to them.

You yourself berated Papias for asking about God "knitting" the embryo together in the mother's womb. Are you not making the same point? The Psalmist knew anatomy well enough to refer to "womb" not "tummy" but did not know the physical details of embryonic development. So under inspiration, he uses a metaphor accommodated to the state of knowledge at the time.

I think you would agree that the use of a figure here (for the literal meaning of "knitting" is quite different) is not lying.

The truthfulness of God is indeed at the heart of hermeneutics here. As TEs see the situation, their opponents have made a fetish of a "literal" interpretation of the text and conflated "literal meaning" with "actual, historical event" so that to view the text "literally" is seen as accepting the literal meaning of the text as a journalistic, historically (and even scientifically) accurate presentation of the event described.

But in order to accept this as the truth about scripture, it is necessary to turn a blind eye to what we know to be the truth about the world God created. And this becomes a false dichotomy. For scripture itself is clear that creation itself is a mode of revelation. God has given us basically three revelations. Creation--made by the Word. Christ Incarnate--the Word made flesh. And scripture--given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit--as a record of God's dealings with humanity and presenting the gospel in human words as Christ presented it in human form.

Since every revelation from God is truth, the revelation of creation in and of itself cannot be pushed aside as if it were of lesser value than the written text of scripture. Nor is there any need to do so, except when one insists on a "literal" meaning that is in clear conflict with facts derived from observing creation.

And that takes us back to just what do we mean by "literal"?
In Genesis three the snake in the garden is introduced. Nothing in the text suggests the snake is anything but a snake--except the fact that it speaks. So is the word "snake" to be understood literally or not? and what does one mean by "literally"--that the word refers to the common animal or that there was historically a talking snake speaking to an actual woman or both? Or could it be that the terminology is literal but the history is not?

Ah, but wait. Do I mean there was no Fall? No, but what if the whole story is a figurative telling of the history of the Fall? The Fall is real enough, temptation is real enough, sin is real enough--but does it follow that talking snakes and fruit that imparts knowledge are historical references. Could they not be metaphorical symbols of a historical event?

Similarly, in Genesis 1, we have the repetition of the word "day" and plenty of discussion of how to understand that term when we have ample evidence of deep time, and a long history of this planet long before humans came on the scene.

Personally, I am quite happy to agree that the literal meaning of "day" in the text is an ordinary solar day. But I would not agree to your meaning which would make them historical as well as literal days. I would call them neither literal nor figurative days, but literary days--days in a story about creation.

This is not in any way a rejection of the historical fact that God created the heavens and the earth. But in a time when little of the created world was yet known to humanity, it makes sense to me that just as God accommodated his terminology on happenings in the womb to the knowledge of the time, he also accommodated his teaching about creation to the knowledge of the time, presenting in story what would, at the time, have been incomprehensible as history.

As long as we demand a "literal" meaning from a text that is counter to the "literal" meaning of the work of God's hands (and Word) we are forced to assert that in one instance or the other, God is lying.

But the only impetus behind demanding a "literal" meaning is the privileged position we give to literal over non-literal meaning--especially by equating "lit eral" with "historical" a complete non-necessity.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why do you think it is preferable to interpret literally? The early Christians didn't think so - they thought that was the lowest form of interpretation.

Nonsense, I've read the early church fathers and they didn't take historical narratives figuratively.

All you do is restate again and again your own assumptions, most of which aren't historically accurate. It is rather ironic that you want to make Genesis historical when you won't even accept the real history we can see clearly.

I know what it actually says, I also know with an historical narrative the literal interpretation is always preferred. The principles of exegesis, exposition and hermeneutics I apply to Genesis dovetail seamlessly with the Gospels. Can you say as much?

In any case, if you assume the answer to the question under discussion, there really isn't any point in talking about it with you. You won't convince anyone by saying "obviously it is history". It isn't obvious to anyone else, and you haven't made a case for it.

Which tells me you don't know the difference between an historical narrative and figurative language.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Smidlee]

Why do you think it is preferable to interpret literally? The early Christians didn't think so - they thought that was the lowest form of interpretation.

You are not suppose to take what those "early Christians" wrote literally.

All you do is restate again and again your own assumptions, most of which aren't historically accurate. It is rather ironic that you want to make Genesis historical when you won't even accept the real history we can see clearly.

What exactly is "real history" as pretty much all history has to be accepted by faith.
One of the interesting things about Biblical history was it's mentions the Jews failures.

 

[SkyWriting]

The geography of Eden is nowhere existent on this planet today, which argues for a catastrophic global flood which drastically changed the topography.

No.
God removed man from the garden and set guards at the gate.
Unless you find a garden with guarded gates, then the Garden
never was on the earth's surface.

 

[Achilles6129]

No.
God removed man from the garden and set guards at the gate.
Unless you find a garden with guarded gates, then the Garden
never was on the earth's surface.

That was a long time ago prior to the global flood. The entire planet's topography has changed since then. The garden of Eden was destroyed in the global flood about 4500 years ago.

 

[Papias]

Achilles wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

You just proved my point. You see symbolic scripture as lesser, meaningless, etc. Why would anyone do that? This is clearly the main point of our discussion.

No, it's not meaningless at all. One of the main points of our discussion has been your misunderstanding of the things that I say. Whether this is done deliberately or not is something which only you know.

I'm only going by what you write yourself - you explicitly said that interpreting it symbolically makes it meaningless. You even had your own quote in front of when you responded above, but here it is again to remind you:

I'm saying that if you interpret Genesis 1-11 to be symbolic, then you really have no idea what is symbolic and what isn't in Scripture. It just becomes meaningless ...

You also said before that interpreting scripture symbolically was like throwing it out. I'm glad that you are backing off from those statements, because I agree that all scripture, whether symbolic or not, is very meaningful.

Originally Posted by Papias

So every symbol in Revelation is indicated as such? Shall we go through them?

Nearly all of them are, yes.

Really? How about the stars falling to earth in chapter 6? Symbolic?

Originally Posted by Papias

And I earlier asked where it said the Good Samaritan was symbolic. Do you have a verse saying it is?

It's a parable put forth in answer to a question. It could have literally happened or it may not have; it doesn't really matter.

Reading it right now, I don't see anything saying it is symbolic. So I'll ask again - do you have a verse saying it is symbolic? Or are you saying it literally happened? It seems to me that it is a story meant to convey a point, and need not have literally happened.

Originally Posted by Papias

What about Ps 139, which says that God makes babies by knitting? Can you point to another verse that says God uses cell division and mitosis?

We come back to the fact that you are simply deliberately being obtuse.

Either God means what he says in Scripture or he does not; claiming that we cannot take Psalm 139 literally because it doesn't use the words "cell division" and "mitosis" is the height of absurdity.

Sounds like you are simply deliberately avoiding your own point. Your own point was that unless the text says it is symbolic, then it is literal. By that, Psalm 139 must mean literal knitting. I agree that's absurd - and hence, your original point is false.

Originally Posted by Papias

Or gravity. Is gravity false because Genesis 1 says that God put the moon up there, instead of it being held up by gravitational orbit?

And others, too, if you'd like.

Again, you're just showing the absurdity of your approach to Scripture at this point.

Again, it sounds like you are admitting your own point is disproven by the scripture.

Originally Posted by Papias

Newsflash: "Hyperbole" is the opposite of "Literal".

I wasn't saying what you thought I was saying by your reply.

You first said the verse was literal, then in the very next sentence said it was hyperbole. What did I miss there?

Originally Posted by Papias

Yes, that was you second position. I showed the whole conversation right there on post #57, where, when asked for a verse showing that Ex 19 was symbolic, you gave Deut, then later posted your second position above. Look, you can just say that your first position was wrong if you like, but pretending you didn't say it is not a good plan when everything is recorded on the internet.

No, there wasn't any sort of switch of positions, I was simply making a point. My position has always been the same throughout: God did not bring the Israelites out of Egypt by flying them out on an eagle, so we can be certain that the "eagles' wings" passage is a metaphor.

I posted your whole series of statements earlier. You can see them again by looking at post #57, where I copied them in order. I even summarized it for you in post #52. And have asked several times, if your point was the same throughout, why did you bring in the Deut passage, which you used to say that the Deut passage said it was symbolic?

Originally Posted by Papias

Because that's not what he said. And you agreed with that point when you objected to the idea that it wasn't the smallest of seeds.

You're not paying attention at all! Notice what the parable says:

"31 He presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field (!!!! - Achilles6129); 32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the [r]air come and nest in its branches.”" Mt. 13:31-33 (NASB)

The man sowed the mustard seed in his field (!). It's a parable about domesticated seeds! The mustard seed is the smallest of all domesticated seeds! That dynamites your interpretation of the text.

It sounds like you aren't paying attention. Jesus said "smaller than ALL other seeds". What part of "all" do you not understand? We both agree that Jesus didn't lie - because he's using symbolic speech.

In fact, this is another case where you switched your position, because you first said that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds (without mention domesticated), and only started with the domesticated part after someong else brought that up. - not that it matters.

The vast majority of people throughout church history have taken Genesis as a literal account of a six-day creation and a global flood. Just because a few people have claimed otherwise is meaningless. The vast majority interpreted it that way until evolution came around.

First, I wonder what data you have showing a "vast majority". As I pointed out, there was diversity in thought on this, with some church fathers showing a non-literal reading (and this goes for Jews too). I gave some examples. So I'll wait for your evidence.

also, with a diversity of views, why do you discount one over the other? Just based on popularity? From the sermons, it sounds like most Christians in the late first century expected the second coming to be within their generation. Does that mean that this must be the correct interpretation, and hence our scripture was wrong? I hope you don't see it that way, though your position on Genesis certainly leads to that.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Calminian]

Nonsense, I've read the early church fathers and they didn't take historical narratives figuratively.

Your are absolutely correct. Hugh Ross has been putting out some deceptive material on this, but all the early fathers were young earth creationists, and most believed the days of creation were literal morning evening days. What they embraced was the practice of typology, which they at time called allegory, but it's closer to how we understand typology. Many of the early fathers believed that the literal days of creation were also types of thousand year future periods. This is why most of them believed the world would end in 6,000 years from creation. Can't get much more young earth than that.

And even the more radical allegorists, like Augustine, were YECs and took Genesis as literal history. And they fought the old earth ideas of their time which were based on greek and egyptian chronology. So they in no way did what modern TEs do today, trying to reconcile the Bible with man's ideas of deep time.

 

[Achilles6129]

I'm only going by what you write yourself - you explicitly said that interpreting it symbolically makes it meaningless.

The point is that if you interpret Genesis 1-11 as some sort of parable, then you really have no idea what in Scripture is a parable or isn't. For example, how do we know whether or not Abraham/Isaac/Jacob is a parable or not?

Really? How about the stars falling to earth in chapter 6? Symbolic?

Not at all. I believe this is describing the earth falling off of its axis: if you were on the night side of the earth, it would look like the stars were falling to the ground.

Reading it right now, I don't see anything saying it is symbolic. So I'll ask again - do you have a verse saying it is symbolic? Or are you saying it literally happened? It seems to me that it is a story meant to convey a point, and need not have literally happened.

I would agree with what you're saying. I would also ask why you think some interpretation of the narrative about the Good Samaritan somehow proves Gen. 1-11 is a parable.

Sounds like you are simply deliberately avoiding your own point. Your own point was that unless the text says it is symbolic, then it is literal. By that, Psalm 139 must mean literal knitting. I agree that's absurd - and hence, your original point is false.

Knitting is simply a figure of speech. Figures of speech can be used literally, like, for example, "four corners of the earth," a figure of speech meant to represent universality.

Nonetheless, figures of speech do correspond to literal reality. If you believe that evolution is in Gen. 1-11 in some sort of figure of speech, then please show me where.

You first said the verse was literal, then in the very next sentence said it was hyperbole. What did I miss there?

No, I said:

It is literal and is talking about domesticated seeds (!). Some statements that use "all" in Scripture can be hyperbole!

My statement "some statements that use "all" in Scripture can be hyperbole" was not referring to the mustard seed parable but was just a general statement. I have plainly stated that the mustard seed being the smallest of all domesticated seeds is literal.

Earler I said:

...Christ saying that the mustard seed is the least of all seeds (hyperbole or talking about domesticated seeds)

My point was not that the reference to "least of all seeds" was in fact hyperbole, only that it could in fact be taken as such, since sometimes Scripture uses such terminology in a manner consistent with the use of hyperbole.

It is interesting that throughout our discussion you have been hyper-literal in interpreting the statements that I make. This has, in fact, led to misunderstanding the points I am trying to get across.

Here was your reply:

OK, so it sounds like we agree here, that Christ could be using hyperbole about the mustard seed, or meaning something he didn't say (like dometsticated seeds) - either way, it's not to be read literally, and we both see that

Again, I do not believe the statement is hyperbole, only that it could be taken as such because it is consistent with use elsewhere in Scripture. However, as I will show presently, Christ is actually talking literally.

I posted your whole series of statements earlier. You can see them again by looking at post #57, where I copied them in order. I even summarized it for you in post #52. And have asked several times, if your point was the same throughout, why did you bring in the Deut passage, which you used to say that the Deut passage said it was symbolic?

What happened is simple: I provided a response to a question you asked (about the 'eagles' wings' during Exodus) and you took my response as the only response to your question, i.e., as my main position on all of Scripture. I brought in the Deut. passage because it was one possible answer to your question. Here is the entire interaction:

Papias (post #16):

OK, help me out. I didn't see where it says that Ex 19:4 is a representation.
]

Me (post #20):

Here you go

"“He found him in a desert land,
And in the howling waste of a wilderness;
He encircled him, He cared for him,
He guarded him as the pupil of His eye.
11 “Like an eagle that stirs up its nest,
That hovers over its young,
He spread His wings and caught them,
He carried them on His pinions.
12 “The Lord alone guided him,
And there was no foreign god with him." Deut. 32:10-12 (NASB)

And later in post #20:

When Scripture uses parables it makes it plain, that's what I'm saying. It clearly indicates as such. For example, we know that God did not literally bear anyone on eagles' wings because that is clearly not recorded in Exodus; he's only using a metaphor. However, if God in fact did fly Israel out of Egypt on an eagle and then later say "I bore you on eagles' wings" then obviously that would be a literal statement

Notice that in my initial response to you I used both the Deut. passage and also the fact that God clearly did not record bearing the children of Israel out of Egypt on eagles' wings as reasons why the 'eagles' wings' passage is to be taken symbolically. I never, at any point in time in my response, indicated that the only reason why that passage should be taken symbolically was because of that one passage in Deuteronomy.

It sounds like you aren't paying attention. Jesus said "smaller than ALL other seeds". What part of "all" do you not understand? We both agree that Jesus didn't lie - because he's using symbolic speech.

The "all other" is referring back to field; it is an elliptical. The mustard seed is the smallest of all the seeds that is planted in the field (domesticated); Christ's statement is literally true.

In fact, this is another case where you switched your position, because you first said that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds (without mention domesticated), and only started with the domesticated part after someong else brought that up. - not that it matters.

My initial response to the "mustard seed" question is located in post #20:

Right, it's the smallest seed in Palestine

I apologize if that statement is not literal enough for you, I tend sometimes to assume that the people who read what I type will make the appropriate connections and not split hairs with everything that I say. So when I said that it was the smallest seed in Palestine, I was correct: the mustard seed is the smallest seed that someone in Palestine would be familiar with and plant (which is exactly what the parable says).

Strong's Greek: 4615. σίναπι (sinapi) -- mustard (a plant)

[The mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds that a Palestinian farmer would sow in his field. A mustard plant reaches a height of three meters (about ten feet). This is a huge plant when fully matured and bears very tiny seeds.]

First, I wonder what data you have showing a "vast majority". As I pointed out, there was diversity in thought on this, with some church fathers showing a non-literal reading (and this goes for Jews too). I gave some examples. So I'll wait for your evidence.

The vast majority did not hold to the view that Gen. 1-11 is some sort of parable. You will always find some people holding to a certain interpretation of Scripture, which is proof of nothing.

Here are some links:

The Early Church on Creation - Answers in Genesis

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers

Of the 24 Church Fathers that I examined, 14 clearly accepted the literal days of Creation; 9 did not mention their thoughts on this subject, and only one held to a clearly figurative belief, which he imbued from the Jewish liberal philosopher, Philo, who had, in turn, been greatly influenced by the pagan Greeks.

also, with a diversity of views, why do you discount one over the other? Just based on popularity?

Not at all. I was simply pointing out that until evolution came around the vast majority of people interpreted Gen. 1-11 straightforwardly.

 

[Calminian]

My statement "some statements that use "all" in Scripture can be hyperbole" was not referring to the mustard seed parable but was just a general statement. I have plainly stated that the mustard seed being the smallest of all domesticated seeds is literal.

That's a good point Achilles. "which, when sown on the ground." This seems to be an important qualifier.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your are absolutely correct. Hugh Ross has been putting out some deceptive material on this, but all the early fathers were young earth creationists, and most believed the days of creation were literal morning evening days. What they embraced was the practice of typology, which they at time called allegory, but it's closer to how we understand typology. Many of the early fathers believed that the literal days of creation were also types of thousand year future periods. This is why most of them believed the world would end in 6,000 years from creation. Can't get much more young earth than that.

Seen a debate with a couple of atheists and Hugh Ross on the evolution side. On the Intelligent Design side was William F. Buckley, a philosopher who spoke out on the atheistic prejudice at Yale years ago and some others, at any rate. I was looking at software packages and browsing the Logos Software and went to take a look at the apologetics books they offer as part of the package and there was not one single Christian Apologetics book in the package but what they had was Hugh Ross and various other modernist books.

It's shameful what has happened to Christian scholarship and academics, the seminaries are a clearing house for Liberal Theology and the churches aren't far behind.

And even the more radical allegorists, like Augustine, were YECs and took Genesis as literal history. And they fought the old earth ideas of their time which were based on greek and egyptian chronology. So they in no way did what modern TEs do today, trying to reconcile the Bible with man's ideas of deep time.

Augustine didn't believe creation happened in a day, he believed it happened in an instant. Augustine believed that Adam was created, not evolved and original sin was a doctrine he defended vigorously. In the last hundred and fifty years the church has abandoned it's academic heritage and we have had the well of Christian academics poisoned by the many modernist views but there is none so potent as Darwinism.

Don't get me wrong, I think this creates a tremendous need in the Church. There are 2,000 years of Christian academics buried beneath this avalanche of Liberal Theology and I know exactly where to find it. What has become increasingly obvious to me is not only what the clear teaching of the Scriptures are, but I believe the skeptics (Darwinians especially) know it. That's not what disturbs me, I would expect nothing less. What gets me is that Bible believing Christians don't and I don't know why not.

 

[Papias]

Achilles wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

I'm only going by what you write yourself - you explicitly said that interpreting it symbolically makes it meaningless.

The point is that if you interpret Genesis 1-11 as some sort of parable, then you really have no idea what in Scripture is a parable or isn't.

First, you still haven't admitted that you called symbolic language "meaningless", so please either retract that or stand by it.

Secondly, you are already in the position we would be if you admit Gen. 1-11 as symbolic, because of the other verses we've been discussing on this thread, such as "knitting", the mustard seed, and Rev 6, none of which indicate anything other than a literal reading by the text itself.

Originally Posted by Papias

Really? How about the stars falling to earth in chapter 6? Symbolic?

Not at all. I believe this is describing the earth falling off of its axis: if you were on the night side of the earth, it would look like the stars were falling to the ground.

Which is in no way indicted by the text, nor does it make sense anyway, since that would make the stars move across the sky (and the stars already move across the sky), not make them fall to earth.

Originally Posted by Papias

Reading it right now, I don't see anything saying it is symbolic. So I'll ask again - do you have a verse saying it is symbolic? Or are you saying it literally happened? It seems to me that it is a story meant to convey a point, and need not have literally happened.

I would agree with what you're saying. I would also ask why you think some interpretation of the narrative about the Good Samaritan somehow proves Gen. 1-11 is a parable.

Because, as this whole thread shows, the Good Samaritan text does not clearly show that it's symbolic. I'm contending that it's OK whether taken literally or not, while you have said that if you can't tell it is figurative, you have to take it literally or it makes the rest of our Holy Scripture meaningless.

Originally Posted by Papias

Sounds like you are simply deliberately avoiding your own point. Your own point was that unless the text says it is symbolic, then it is literal. By that, Psalm 139 must mean literal knitting. I agree that's absurd - and hence, your original point is false.

Knitting is simply a figure of speech. Figures of speech can be used literally, like, for example, "four corners of the earth," a figure of speech meant to represent universality.

So then a figure of speech like "let the land produce vegetation" can be used literally to show the evolution of plants on Earth?

Nonetheless, figures of speech do correspond to literal reality. If you believe that evolution is in Gen. 1-11 in some sort of figure of speech, then please show me where.

As I indicated before, and gave both Jewish and Chrisitan references for, the poetic nature of Genesis, the plays on words, and other similar clear indications are well known to both Jews and Christians.

Originally Posted by Papias

You first said the verse was literal, then in the very next sentence said it was hyperbole. What did I miss there?

No, I said:


​

It is literal and is talking about domesticated seeds (!). Some statements that use "all" in Scripture can be hyperbole!

My statement "some statements that use "all" in Scripture can be hyperbole" was not referring to the mustard seed parable but was just a general statement.


I have plainly stated that the mustard seed being the smallest of all domesticated seeds is literal.

Earler I said:

...Christ saying that the mustard seed is the least of all seeds (hyperbole or talking about domesticated seeds)

My point was not that the reference to "least of all seeds" was in fact hyperbole, only that it could in fact be taken as such, since sometimes Scripture uses such terminology in a manner consistent with the use of hyperbole.

It is interesting that throughout our discussion you have been hyper-literal in interpreting the statements that I make. This has, in fact, led to misunderstanding the points I am trying to get across.

Here was your reply:

OK, so it sounds like we agree here, that Christ could be using hyperbole about the mustard seed, or meaning something he didn't say (like dometsticated seeds) - either way, it's not to be read literally, and we both see that

Again, I do not believe the statement is hyperbole, only that it could be taken as such because it is consistent with use elsewhere in Scripture. However, as I will show presently, Christ is actually talking literally.

You are tripping over youself to both say that it could, and simultaneously is not, hyperbole. This is very confusing, especially since you first brought up hyperbole in the middle of talking about this verse, while using the same word "all" used in that verse. I guess I'll wait to see if you can striaghten yourself out.

Originally Posted by Papias

I posted your whole series of statements earlier. You can see them again by looking at post #57, where I copied them in order. I even summarized it for you in post #52. And have asked several times, if your point was the same throughout, why did you bring in the Deut passage, which you used to say that the Deut passage said it was symbolic?

What happened is simple: I provided a response to a question you asked (about the 'eagles' wings' during Exodus) and you took my response as the only response to your question, i.e., as my main position on all of Scripture.

I brought in the Deut. passage because it was one possible answer to your question. Here is the entire interaction:

Papias (post #16):

OK, help me out. I didn't see where it says that Ex 19:4 is a representation.
]

Me (post #20):

​

Here you go

"“He found him in a desert land,
And in the howling waste of a wilderness;
He encircled him, He cared for him,
He guarded him as the pupil of His eye.
11 “Like an eagle that stirs up its nest,
That hovers over its young,
He spread His wings and caught them,
He carried them on His pinions.
12 “The Lord alone guided him,
And there was no foreign god with him." Deut. 32:10-12 (NASB)
​

And later in post #20:

When Scripture uses parables it makes it plain, that's what I'm saying. It clearly indicates as such. For example, we know that God did not literally bear anyone on eagles' wings because that is clearly not recorded in Exodus; he's only using a metaphor. However, if God in fact did fly Israel out of Egypt on an eagle and then later say "I bore you on eagles' wings" then obviously that would be a literal statement

Notice that in my initial response to you I used both the Deut. passage and also the fact that God clearly did not record bearing the children of Israel out of Egypt on eagles' wings as reasons why the 'eagles' wings' passage is to be taken symbolically. I never, at any point in time in my response, indicated that the only reason why that passage should be taken symbolically was because of that one passage in Deuteronomy.

Giving two possible ways to tell it is symbolic doesn't change the conclusion that Genesis is symbolic. You gave two ways to show that it is symbolic (the indication from another verse and the test of other descriptions of the same event) and of those two, I gave a verse that said Genesis 1 was symbolic, and pointed out that the other one didn't apply because there are not other descriptions of the same event.

So your own criteria are showing Genesis to be symbolic. Add to that the indications in the text itself mentioned earlier, and we are 3 for 3 showing that Genesis is symbolic.

My initial response to the "mustard seed" question is located in post #20:

Right, it's the smallest seed in Palestine

I apologize if that statement is not literal enough for you, I tend sometimes to assume that the people who read what I type will make the appropriate connections and not split hairs with everything that I say. So when I said that it was the smallest seed in Palestine, I was correct: the mustard seed is the smallest seed that someone in Palestine would be familiar with and plant (which is exactly what the parable says).

No, it isn't. The parable says "smallest of all seeds.". Are you saying that we can add words to what Jesus says based on our own logical conclusions and other evidence? In this case, the external evidence is the information on which seeds are farmed in Palestine - which is not enumerated in the scriptures.

Originally Posted by Papias

First, I wonder what data you have showing a "vast majority". As I pointed out, there was diversity in thought on this, with some church fathers showing a non-literal reading (and this goes for Jews too). I gave some examples. So I'll wait for your evidence.

Of the 24 Church Fathers that I examined, 14 clearly accepted the literal days of Creation; 9 did not mention their thoughts on this subject, and only one held to a clearly figurative belief, which he imbued from the Jewish liberal philosopher, Philo, who had, in turn, been greatly influenced by the pagan Greeks.
​

Thanks for providing evidence. Could you do so from a non-biased source? AIG is known to lie repeatedly. Even so, you still haven't shown a vast majority.

Originally Posted by Papias

also, with a diversity of views, why do you discount one over the other? Just based on popularity?

Not at all. I was simply pointing out that until evolution came around the vast majority of people interpreted Gen. 1-11 straightforwardly.

Irrelevant. In the case of diseases, no one interpreted any mention of disease in the scriptures as due to germs until germ theory came up in the 1800s. So by your own method, we should reject germ theory? The same goes for Gravity, gestation, and countless other modern learnings.




Papias