I would have thought typology was a form of allegory, a bit more formalised, with lists worked out of what different things symbolise, but allegory all the same. It is very easy to read you own world view into scripture whatever your approach to scripture. Ironically, today we see this more with literalists who often try to read modern science into scripture just as readily as Philo read his Platonism. It is the TEs here who try to understand how scripture was written in a very different cultural context. It still speak to us today, but the cultural context is not the message God was communicating.Back to Alexandria v Antioch. I am closer to Antioch and you to Alexandria. Where you see allegory I may often prefer to talk about typology. But I do not go all the way to the Antiochian position because of the way Jesus and the apostles used OT scriptures. A historical-grammatical method is not enough to explain this.
Philos method was speculative in my view although he did accept the literal historical meaning as a starting point in most cases. The conclusions he draws become using the Bible to decorate his prior Platonism.
there is nothing wrong with this post as it states my reasons for not continuing participating in this thread. if the TE's and other alternative believing people cannot handle the truth or someone's reasons then they cannot expect their opponents to handle nor accept their reasoning for holding to their heresy.
7. their interpretation and use of the Bible comes from their own understanding or the secualr world's. in either case neither are of God and they are wrong.
8. the hiding behind the word 'interpretation' means they are followng Bultman and the existential crowd who said that what scriptures means to you may not mean the same way to me. that makes God word subjective and subject to the whims of man and that is wrong as well. it is all an excuse to continue to avoid the truth.
We ALL are looking at EVIDENCE and since none of us was actually THERE we cannot 'prove' anything as far as how it was done.....and to demand as much is an absurd request since we all know we CANT prove much of anything.Crawling around the web I notice a lot of YECs who are convinced that evolution is crap and they can prove beyond any shadow of doubt that they are right.
Old earth contradicts the Scriptures
by WmTipton
Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
This article is just to briefly cover a point or two from Gods word to show that old earth theory is contradictory to the bibles account 'as written'.
This article is making no claims about interpretation of 'scientific' evidence, but solely about the wording of Genesis in Gods account
Supporting Evidence
The bible does not show that the earth is millions of years old
The Hebrew word for 'day' can mean long ages unless it is further defined by the surrounding context....'an evening and a morning' is that context.
Especially when a 'day' is very clearly defined in Genesis itself.
We have a planet called earth and we have a source of light.And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Gen 1:3-5 KJV)
We have a dark side of this planet earth and a light side, separated by God into 'day' and Night'
All that is needed now for an evening and a morning is rotation.
An evening and a morning show fairly conclusively that we are talking about a single earth rotation day.
There was a man named Adam made on the 6th day of creation.
This mans genealogy can be show all the way up to Christ in the scriptures, even with many of the lifespans given in exact years.
Scripture does not support that the earth has been here for even millions of years, let alone billions.
2.0
The 'light'.
Scripture shows that the sun was created on day 4 of the creation week.
Plantlife, however, was created on day 3.And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
(Gen 1:16-19 MKJV)
Since we know factually that plant life, all life on this planet for the most part, REQUIRES the energy and light given from our sun to exist, the logical assumption is that this light set into place with the words 'let their be light' MUST have been equivalent TO the sun to keep this plant life alive until the sun was put into place on day 4.And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so. And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
(Gen 1:11-13 MKJV)
3.0
Things we infer from the text;
-the 'light' mimicked the sun...which the evidence supports conclusively since there was plant life being supported before the suns creation on day 4.
-the earth rotated ....which the evidence supports conclusively since this 'evening and morning' are spoken of in the same exact manner both BEFORE the sun was created on day 4 and AFTER the sun was created on day 4.
We see that the situation was the same both BEFORE the sun was created and AFTER it was created. There was 'day and night' and 'evening and morning' and plant life existed, leaving no other logical conclusion that can be inferred from the texts OTHER than this light created before the sun MUST have been similar to our sun.
4.0
The man Adam
Man was created on the 6th day of creation.
God rested on the 7th day.
Here in Genesis 1 we see the creation of this man and woman.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: ............. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
(Gen 1:27-31 KJV)
And here in Genesis 2 we see more detail added to about this man and woman who were created from the dust of the earth and then put into the garden.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
(Gen 2:7-8 KJV)
We know that Adam was the first 'man' because that is exactly what scripture confirms.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
(1Co 15:45 KJV)
The man Adam and his wife Eve were created on the 6th day of creation.
This man Adam lived to be 930 years old.
If the creation days were not single earth rotation days, then Adam would have had to have been older than scripture accounts for.Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years. And he died.
If the creation days were even a decade long, then Adam would be ten years older than he was, thus scriptures account of his lifespan is false.
Evolutionists have theory to try to explain how things came about....YECs start with Gods word and try to explain how Gods account fits with the evidence. Both sides try to fit the evidence into their viewpoint....that much is fact.
I think Jesus did know that Genesis was true and this is why he did not contradict the scriptures the Holy Spirit had inspired about this.
So He must remain in ignorance so that He is not deceptive??? He mustIndeed he affirms the authority of the whole Pentateuch on innumerable occasions and conventional interpretations about it e.g. Mosaic authorship. If Jesus had questioned the veracity of the original Genesis inspiration it would have cast doubts on who he was,
as he would have been directly contradicting the obvious intent of scripture.
That he reinterpreted aspects of the law in the light of his arrival on earth is clear e.g. food laws and ceremonial laws. He also reaffirmed truthes from before the law that had been lost e.g. the equality of women and the worth of even lowborn slaves and gentiles in the way he dealt with and spoke to people. BUt he left the basic background structure in tact e.g. creation.
The problem is not "so called" evolution (speciation or micro evolution).
The real problem is the absurdity of universal common descent that I
was once seduced into by scientific inductions.
There is a way out of the maze....
Question everything. It just might lead you in the right direction.
I don't believe in luck,..
I believe in praying for protection from that which is untrue.
Not any I know about. Being an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, I know that the flood of Genesis is not a worldwide flood.What global event is missing from your interpretation of the fossil record?
Rather, if you start with the asssumption that "eretz" means "worldwide", you will be led to the false doctrine of a worldwide flood.If you start with the wrong assumptions which deny the possibility of such a global event then you will indeed end up with a faulty conclusion.
The founders of modern geology all started with the assumption of a global flood, and attempted to explain what they saw in the rocks in terms of a flood. They failed badly. Then they tried a series of flood and other catastrophes, and they still failed. Eventually they were forced to the conclusion that the world was very old, that life had been around for many millions of years, and that it had changed over time.What global event is missing from your interpretation of the fossil record? If you
start with the wrong assumptions which deny the possibility of such a global event
then you will indeed end up with a faulty conclusion.
What would "real science" say about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?That's how real science works. It doesn't start with an assumption and stick with it regardless of the data.
What would "real science" say about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?
Will-do --- thanks for the advice ---Nothing at all. Science is too weak a method to handle the supernatural. For that you need other ways of understanding. Fortunately, He gave us those means. Use them.
The only way science could test the resurrection of Christ is if we had his physical body to test. We don't, so science can say nothing on the matter.What would "real science" say about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?
What would "real science" say about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?
1. What are the three most-cited scientific reasons in the scientific literature for rejecting common descent?Barbarian said:1. What are the three most-cited scientific reasons in the scientific literature for accepting common descent?
2. Why are the discoveries of predicted organisms in the fossil record, evidence for common descent?
3. Why is the sorting of fossils in the geologic column evidence for common descent?
No, the creationists of the time faded out. They were not ousted by solid scientific deliberation. The scientific criticisms of uniformitarianism raised then are still with us today. You are revising history.sts said:The founders of modern geology all started with the assumption of a global flood, and attempted to explain what they saw in the rocks in terms of a flood. They failed badly.
There lies the path of prejudice and bigotry. I would not say the reverse, that I pray for protection from the lies of evolutionists. Evolutionists say many truthful things. What is important is that we discern truth no matter where it may come from. Mark 9:38ff.artybloke said:Which is why I'm praying for protection form the lies of creationism.
1. What are the three most-cited scientific reasons in the scientific literature for rejecting common descent?
2: Why is homology always dogmatically treated as evidence for common descent and not for common design, except when it's not (convergent evolution)? Why isn't common design considered, particularly in the light of the unarguable existence of a Creator?
3: Why is the sorting of fossils in the geologic column always dogmatically evidence for common descent and not evidence for recent creation and catastrophisism?
Answer those questions and you're well on your way.
Grace and peace.
No, the creationists of the time faded out. They were not ousted by solid scientific deliberation. The scientific criticisms of uniformitarianism raised then are still with us today. You are revising history.
There lies the path of prejudice and bigotry. I would not say the reverse, that I pray for protection from the lies of evolutionists. Evolutionists say many truthful things. What is important is that we discern truth no matter where it may come from. Mark 9:38ff.