It seems to me that the creationist argument is just... silly.

[Willtor]

KWCrazy, do you agree that true and historical are not synonymous, even for narrative accounts?

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, Jesus taught that the Scriptures were accurate. He's the one I believe. All others are merely corroborating the previously ascertained truth.

Amen - and Bible believing Christians who accept what the Bible says in its historic accounts regarding the virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ and 7 day creation week of Gen 1-2:3 - turn out to be right in terms of "the kind of literature that it is " a historic account. Not poetic symbolism.

And this is agreed to by the "Hebrew and OT scholars in all world class universities" according to one of their own - James Barr.

Yet the T.E. POV is required to "wish all of that away" all the facts not withstanding.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

...

And this is agreed to by the "Hebrew and OT scholars in all world class universities" according to one of their own - James Barr.

...

Are you still peddling this? You've been shown that this is untrue in multiple threads.

 

[miamited]

KWCrazy, do you agree that true and historical are not synonymous, even for narrative accounts?

Hi willtor,

Well, as a logical argument, here's what I believe about your statement. All accurate historical accounts are true. All truth is not historical.

Yes, I can tell my neighbor that last year my dog jumped over the moon and while that is an historical account based on the time frame of which I am speaking, it is not the truth. So, the question is: Since it didn't really happen is it really an historical account? In other words, just because someone is speaking of the past, does that make it historical? Or rather do we consider something historical if it speaks accurately of the past?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

Well, as a logical argument, here's what I believe about your statement. All accurate historical accounts are true. All truth is not historical.

Yes, I can tell my neighbor that last year my dog jumped over the moon and while that is an historical account based on the time frame of which I am speaking, it is not the truth. So, the question is: Since it didn't really happen is it really an historical account? In other words, just because someone is speaking of the past, does that make it historical? Or rather do we consider something historical if it speaks accurately of the past?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

So, it looks like there are four categories:

1. True + Historical: Like, The First World War, by John Keegan

2. True + Non-historical: Like, The Pilgrim's Regress, by C.S. Lewis

3. False + Historical: Like, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, by Washington Irving

4. False + Non-historical: No example needed.

It seems like the creationists want to believe that the TEs hold the 3rd position, even though (as far as I can tell) none of us do. Why is that?

 

[miamited]

Hi willtor,

Well, I can only answer for myself, but yes, of the four possibilities that you list TE's do seem to understand that the writings are historical, as in written about the past, but false in its account historically, as in factual.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[BobRyan]

Hi willtor,

Well, I can only answer for myself, but yes, of the four possibilities that you list TE's do seem to understand that the writings are historical, as in written about the past, but false in its account historically, as in factual.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Indeed - James Barr affirms that the "kind of literature that is" is an historic account in Gen 1-11 - but as a critic he flatly denies the historicity of accounts such as creation, the flood, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ etc.

As would be expected of course. Still they admit to "the kind of literature that it is " when it comes to those historical accounts of events in the past.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So, it looks like there are four categories:

1. True + Historical: Like, The First World War, by John Keegan

2. True + Non-historical: Like, The Pilgrim's Regress, by C.S. Lewis

3. False + Historical: Like, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, by Washington Irving

4. False + Non-historical: No example needed.

It seems like the creationists want to believe that the TEs hold the 3rd position, even though (as far as I can tell) none of us do. Why is that?

Bible believing resurrectionists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-ascensionists, creationists, Bible-believists - think that T.E. enjoy taking Bible literature written as a historical account (as in -- the kind of literature that it is) and then "imagining" it to be "poetic symbolism" because if accepted as the text is written -- it does not accommodate blind faith evolutionism.

So then they "pick-and-choose" which historic accounts to bend-and-wrench into "poetic symbolism" -- as needed to serve an outside agenda. Truly a conflict of interest going on there with the T.E. wrenching of the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[godenver1]

Are you saying that if you don't believe in creationism you don't believe the bible? If so, the chances are you've just claimed that the majority of Christians don't believe the bible

 

[BobRyan]

The "conflict of interest" is between the "interest" to claim to have a believable possibly even reliable rendering of the text.... vs the interest to be blindly devoted to evolutionism.

Those two interests - conflict in the case of the T.E.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

Well, I can only answer for myself, but yes, of the four possibilities that you list TE's do seem to understand that the writings are historical, as in written about the past, but false in its account historically, as in factual.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You would also be inclined to say that The Pilgrim's Regress was historical but false, I suppose, then?

 

[Willtor]

Bible believing resurrectionists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-ascensionists, creationists, Bible-believists - think that T.E. enjoy taking Bible literature written as a historical account (as in -- the kind of literature that it is) and then "imagining" it to be "poetic symbolism" because if accepted as the text is written -- it does not accommodate blind faith evolutionism.

So then they "pick-and-choose" which historic accounts to bend-and-wrench into "poetic symbolism" -- as needed to serve an outside agenda. Truly a conflict of interest going on there with the T.E. wrenching of the text.

in Christ,

Bob

Are you sure? I wonder. If only there were a James Barr quote to back you up...

 

[godenver1]

The "conflict of interest" is between the "interest" to claim to have a believable possibly even reliable rendering of the text.... vs the interest to be blindly devoted to evolutionism.

Those two interests - conflict in the case of the T.E.

in Christ,

Bob

I find it strange that you say "blindly" devoted to evolutionism when YEC doesn't have any credible evidence and evolution does according to biologists- the people with expertise in the area.

So then they "pick-and-choose" which historic accounts to bend-and-wrench into "poetic symbolism" -- as needed to serve an outside agenda. Truly a conflict of interest going on there with the T.E. wrenching of the text.

Who decides who is picking and choosing? Typically, Baptists take the bible literally when It comes to creationism (there are exceptions, as I believe Blue Wren is currently a baptist) but not when the Bible talks about baptism and communion. I've heard this is because Jesus was 'obviously' speaking symbolically. The point I'm trying to make is this: which so many interpretations, who decides who is "wrenching" the biblical text or not? I think it's wise to defer to the church fathers-like Augustine- who interpret Genesis as symbolic. Was St. Augustine picking and choosing? Or did he just flat out not believe any of the bible, like the YEC 'bible believing' Christians?

 

[miamited]

You would also be inclined to say that The Pilgrim's Regress was historical but false, I suppose, then?

Hi willtor,

I'm going to go with you meant to write 'Pilgrim's Progress' in answering your question. Yes, that would be a correct supposition.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

I'm going to go with you meant to write 'Pilgrim's Progress' in answering your question. Yes, that would be a correct supposition.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

No, I mean Pilgrim's Regress, which is one of my favorite books. It's an autobiography of C.S. Lewis written as a narrative. But it's non-historical. There are dragons and a talking mountain and stuff.

 

[Calminian]

No, I mean Pilgrim's Regress, which is one of my favorite books. It's an autobiography of C.S. Lewis written as a narrative. But it's non-historical. There are dragons and a talking mountain and stuff.

Not to beat this poor horse any more than necessary, but this is exactly the reasoning Bishop Spong uses in denying the literalness of the resurrection account.

 

[Willtor]

Not to beat this poor horse any more than necessary, but this is exactly the reasoning Bishop Spong uses in denying the literalness of the resurrection account.

I haven't read Spong, so I can't speak to that. Therefore, I will be a little more general in my phrasing:

Nobody can use the arguments I made about Genesis being figurative to talk about the gospels. These arguments are tailored to Genesis because they are based on my readings of and about Genesis. Perhaps they can be amended to the gospels, however. I'd be open to hearing them.

Calminian, can you take the position of the devil's advocate and argue that the gospels were not intended literally? You can use Spong's arguments as a basis, if you have them available. Or pick an argument of mine about Genesis, and rephrase it in terms of a gospel.

 

[Blue Wren]

Are you sure? I wonder. If only there were a James Barr quote to back you up...

 

[BobRyan]

Bible believing resurrectionists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-ascensionists, creationists, Bible-believists - think that T.E. enjoy taking Bible literature written as a historical account (as in -- the kind of literature that it is) and then "imagining" it to be "poetic symbolism" because if accepted as the text is written -- it does not accommodate blind faith evolutionism.

So then they "pick-and-choose" which historic accounts to bend-and-wrench into "poetic symbolism" -- as needed to serve an outside agenda. Truly a conflict of interest going on there with the T.E. wrenching of the text.

The "conflict of interest" is between the "interest" to claim to have a believable possibly even reliable rendering of the text.... vs the interest to be blindly devoted to evolutionism.

Those two interests - conflict in the case of the T.E.

I find it strange that you say "blindly" devoted to evolutionism when YEC doesn't have any credible evidence

The T.E. is bliindly devoted to easter-bunnyism it matters not that Creationists believe the Bible - the Word of the Designer who in fact said He created all life on earth in a 7 day timeline about 6000 years ago - the evolutionists religion is entirely independent of facts of that sort.

So I don't follow your attempt to connect them.

The paucity of observable evidence for the salient point of evolutionism is staggering.

NO rocks, dust, gas, liquids self-combine to become bacteria - period!

NO bacteria become Amoebas - or any other sort of eukaryote. Period!

NO Amoebas turn into horses.

There is NO climbing going on of that sort.

So they "imagine it".

And they spin hoax after decades long hoax to prop up their story.

Their dilemma is hard to ignore - no matter the names or faults they wish to call out against Bible believing Christians.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We had some T.E. posts trying to 'wish this away' recently - but the facts remain.


Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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; . . . 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. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

He is of course - merely stating the obvious when it comes to the text and "the kind of literature that it is".

It just that in his case - not being the every day Christian variety T.E. --- he has no conflict of interest driving him to "bend the text" to fit some outside agenda.

Given the glaringly obvious point then - there are only two choices.

1. deny the historicity of the Bible as Barr does.

2. Believe the Bible - as Bible believing Christians do.

BOTH of these options are far more straightforward and logical - than the T.E. option of "pretending" we can't see that the text is written as a historic account.

and evolution does according to biologists- the people with expertise in the area.


Who decides who is picking and choosing? Typically, Baptists take the bible literally when It comes to creationism (there are exceptions, as I believe Blue Wren is currently a baptist) but not when the Bible talks about baptism and communion. I've heard this is because Jesus was 'obviously' speaking symbolically. The point I'm trying to make is this: which so many interpretations, who decides who is "wrenching" the biblical text or not? I think it's wise to defer to the church fathers-like Augustine- who interpret Genesis as symbolic. Was St. Augustine picking and choosing? Or did he just flat out not believe any of the bible, like the YEC 'bible believing' Christians?

It is not so confusing as you have imagined - and according to Barr the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities "notice", as do Bible believing Christians who accept the Word of God as trustworthy.

Augustine "imagined" that a 7 day week was Wayyyy tooooo long for creation and so it must have been more like 'one day' with the 7 days of Creation week symbolic for the phases of one literal day.

I fail to see how evolutionists think this helps their case.

in Christ,

Bob