Bible literalism.
- Thread starter dms1972
- Start date
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
I could - but I won't - the guy that posted it also copyrighted it.
Besides there is always the "deny all" factor out there - that will ask for at least some wiggle room..
And in answer to your next question "no, there is not a later part of the letter where Barr then says --- nahhh I was just making stuff up so evolutionists would feel bad"
Though near the end of the letter Barr adds this
"However, you might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really
not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is."
So he argues even if you could find 1 that stands out against all the rest at one of these world-class universities ... the main point is in reference to "the KIND of text that Genesis IS" - the answer the very question that was being asked.
true that
Last edited:
Upvote
0
A transcript of private correspondence doesn't count as evidence. Even if the letter is genuine, the transcript may not be accurate.
He's obviously wrong. Any number of professors of Hebrew think it was, to a greater or lesser extent, allegorical.
And "days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience" seems anachronistic. The 1440-minute long day is a modern concept, deriving from the invention of the mechanical clock. Biblical hours are variable in length.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
You may have mistaken my quote - for an effort to try and convince you against your will. that was not my intent - believe anything you wish... you have free will.
Upvote
0
You know where a photo/scan is, but you're refusing to post a link? I'm calling Burnt Sugar on that claim.
But I found what purports to be a retyped version of the letter at Stephen E. Jones: creation evolution articles: James Barr, letter of 23 April 1984 to David C.C. Watson.
I do not know how authentic or accurate that is, so I still don't accept it as evidence.
I note, however, that that retyped version continues "... The only thing I would say to qualify this is that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other. But I think what I say would represent their position correctly. However, you might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is."
So, if authentic, Barr is saying "everybody who shares my appreciation of Genesis shares my appreciation of Genesis."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
I could - but I won't - the guy that posted it also copyrighted it.
Besides there is always the "deny all" factor out there - that will ask for at least some wiggle room..
And in answer to your next question "no, there is not a later part of the letter where Barr then says --- nahhh I was just making stuff up so evolutionists would feel bad"
Though near the end of the letter Barr adds this
"However, you might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really
not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is."
So he argues even if you could find 1 that stands out against all the rest at one of these world-class universities ... the main point is in reference to "the KIND of text that Genesis IS" - and that answers the very question that was being asked here.
true that
As I said - I have no problem at all leaving you with all the burnt sugar you wish to call for - you can believe anything else you wish. you have free will.
I am simply not uploading my copy of that scan of it - if I had a public link that was still active for it - I would post it. Suffice it to say that of all the atheists/evolutionists that are also quoting this on the internet and complaining that creationists know about it - not one of them has claimed to have found any info at all that Barr rejected his statement in his letter or that he refutes it in the least or that it does not exist.
However I see that these guys did post a link that will get you a copy -I am just not uploading mine.
James Barr - Wikiquote
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Jok
Well-Known Member
- Jul 9, 2019
- 774
- 658
- 47
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
Keep some things in perspective, for one understand that your post scientific enlightenment questions about Genesis/Earth Age/Geology where of no concern to the original OT audiences, and if they were of no concern it wouldn’t exactly be a violation for Genesis to refrain from giving scientific explanations that the listeners didn’t even want.
Also, church fathers were the philosophers of early and medieval Christianity, and Scholasticism actually merged Christianity with Aristotle. So much so that he was simply referred to as THE Philosopher in the church. Hundreds of years later after having this merging take place it was often not realized that the scientific revolution wasn’t even a threat to Christianity, it was actually a threat to the Aristotelian philosophy that got joined to the hip with Christianity centuries earlier, Aristotle was actually what was being threatened by the scientific revolution, but by that time they were thought of as one in the same world-views.
As for historical literalism or not, I really like those books that give you a few different perspectives all from highly qualified people, and where you get to weigh their arguments for yourself, there’s one short book here, I wish I could be more help with a recap but I haven’t read it yet because I’m on a commentary push right now,
Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?
Three Views on The Bible’s Earliest Chapters
https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Earliest-Chapters-Counterpoints-Theology/dp/0310514940/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=genesis+history%2C+fiction%2C+or+neither&qid=1593835455&sprefix=genesis+his&sr=8-3
Upvote
0
No problem - Certainly I would not have gathered he thought that from your quote, but Luther in his Genesis commentary says that Augustine and Hillary of Poiters had thought something along those lines.
"Hillary and Augustine, two great lights in the church, believed the world was made on a sudden and all at once, not sucessively during the space of six days. Augustine plays upon these six days in a marvelous manner in explaining them. He considers them to be mystical days of knowledge in the angels, and not natural days. Hence have arisen those continual discussions in the schools and in churches concerning the evening and morning knowledge, which Augustine was the cause of being introduced. These are all diligently collected and particularly mentioned by Lyra. Let those therefore who wish to know more about them consult Lyra."
Luther goes on to say
"But all these disputations, though subtle and clever are not to the point of the question. For what need is there to make a two-fold knowledge. Equally useless is it to consider Moses in the beginning of his history as speaking mystically or allegorically. For he is not instructing us concerning allegorical creatures and an allegorical world, but concerning essential creatures and a world visible and apprehensive by the senses, he calls, as we say in or trite proverb, "a post, a post" - that is, when he says morning or day or evening, his meaning is the same as ours when we use those terms without any allegory whatever...But if we cannot fully comprehend the days here mentioned nor understand why God chose to use these intervals of time, let us rather confess our ignorance in the matter than wrest the words of Moses from the circumstances which he is recording to a meaning, which has nothing to do with those circumstance."
But while Luther is saying he takes "day" in a plain sense, hes not seeking to build a creation science on the first chapters of Genesis as some attempt to do. I could more or less accept what Luther says here (though I do like to look into other views like Augustine's).
Here is a helpful article on Augustine's Cosmology:
St. Augustine and Cosmology | Villanova University
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Carl Emerson
Well-Known Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 14,734
- 10,041
- 78
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Why don't you comment on the issue of science dictating the beliefs of folk which was my message...
Or do you rather enjoy the desperate bid to find fault with me because my testimony challenges your theology?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I frequently have trouble understanding what your message is. That is the case here.
I'm not impressed with ad hominem, especially when someone throws wild punches that miss the point.
But where I see something that's patently untrue, I critique it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Carl Emerson
Well-Known Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 14,734
- 10,041
- 78
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes it is much safer to keep the soul well away from interaction - that is very common on CF - as a result folks present intellectual points and never converse.
I cut to that chase and engage with the person - I know it is uncomfortable - that is why you are unimpressed.
What is better to do is explore the claimed observation - but that takes courage I guess.
Easier to say no to ad hominem.
Upvote
0
Your student friend may have been wrong. You may have misunderstood him. You may have misremembered the episode (which was a long time ago).
Either way, your unreliable memory of what you think your friend might have said is not an "observation" -- and I have provided solid written proof that it was incorrect. There is nothing more to be said about it.
It may be that you have a broader point. It's kind of hard to tell. Certainly there are phenomena out there that scientists cannot explain; scientists generally find those phenomena very interesting.
A bit less personal abuse would be good, and a bit more logic and evidence would be even better.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Carl Emerson
Well-Known Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 14,734
- 10,041
- 78
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Scientists cant explain how and why the universe began but insist an intelligent designer was not involved.
This was my point - we are not allowed to believe the source and cause until they 'discover' it.
Well it was never 'covered' in the first place - and they have seen it and dismissed it.
This we know from Romans 1.
I raised the issue of the green flash as an example of a phenomena that was seen by many before science could explain it - similar to the evidence of objects caught on radar appearing to defy known laws - the information was classified until this year. Why was it classified - because they didnt want folks to believe it, it seems. As least not until science could explain it as 'natural'
Let the reader decide if I have been abusive.
As to the Logic and evidence - this is not where faith comes from.
Faith comes from hearing Him.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You seem to be conflating "scientists" and "atheists" here.
As a scientist and a Christian, I object.
I think you totally misunderstand the situation here. But this is conspiracy-theory territory.
In a discussion such as this, logic and evidence are essential. Your faith, or lack thereof, does nothing to convince me.
Upvote
0
Carl Emerson
Well-Known Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 14,734
- 10,041
- 78
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
And rightly so - you are an exception it seems.
I made sure I presented facts only. Why do you think the information was classified?
I am making no appeal for readers to be convinced by my faith.
The OP refers to His word. It takes more than logic and evidence to receive truth from Him.
Being able to hear Him as we ponder on His word requires an ear that hears His Spirit.
How we understand Genesis is a gift given to those who hear Him and believe Him.
Upvote
0
- Aug 2, 2017
- 2,211
- 1,279
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I believe you are referring to YEC "scientists" and their ever growing list of "arguments creationists should not use"! Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - creation.com
Quite obvious that science is "goofy" only when it contradicts your dogma...so you'll use science driven synthetic diamonds when it supports such dogma and then denigrate science when it doesn't...such shrewd consistency!
Yes, as it hasn't so much changed as it has been easily refuted. Of course that would require actually approaching the evidence and information without preconceived bias and the ever present dogma.
RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?
C-14 Found in Diamonds?
You exaggerate "change" as it suits your belief, and yet science will continue to proceed and every day you will be immersed and make use of the myriad discoveries - seems to be a matter of selective acceptance.
As noted this has been discussed before and you were unable to answer many questions meaningfully. What you are unable to do is "point" to where 6 days were denied. I would agree that a simple surface reading of Genesis 1-2 would lead one to simple conclusions however, to dive into the "depths of the riches" then questions arise and the simplicity wanes.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Aug 2, 2017
- 2,211
- 1,279
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." this is that which we all agree.
So there was a starting point prior to the creation days?
So the heavens and the earth were created prior to the first day, or just the earth?
Did that include the heavens?
Was it just the earth or were other planets involved?
How long was the earth created before day 1?
Did the earth just sit in a void?
When would gravity have come into effect?
When were the planetary orbits introduced?
How exactly does Exodus 20:11 suggest that the earth/heavens were created before day 1?
Where in Genesis 1:3-5 is it noted as to one rotation of the earth?
Where in Genesis 1:3-5 is the "light" defined?
Why is asking reasonable questions "limiting God" or an attempt to "downsize his word"?
Why do questions equate to "nothing in the text can be accepted as actually true"?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
