Do you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism?

ChubbyCherub said:

Thanks.

And what about Jesus walking on water?

I have read, somewhere, that many believe this is symbolic because Jewish people were afraid of water so walking on it, parting the Red Sea, flooding the Earth etc all has to do with conquering a fear through symbolism.

Is there some reference point for your knowledge or do you have main stream knowledge that I haven't been privy to, due to not being in church for many years, until recently?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Because Jesus walking on water isn't part of a core doctrine or creed to believe as a literal historical narrative, someone could view it symbolically and it wouldn't be heresy. I would say that, at least in my experience, it isn't uncommon among evangelicals or especially mainline protestants to consider this story to be symbolically true, even if it may be a minority view.

I take my information from Protestant, typically evangelical scholarship. For example, there are some very well known, well respected and conservative, inerrancy affirming, evangelical scholars of Bible that view Adam as being a typological figure but not necessarily a literal one. It's actually not uncommon. I have a couple examples of this before, John Walton and Tremper Longman III are relatively popular and well respected. If I had to guess, I would say that majority of conservative Bible scholars today are not young earth creationists either. 9/10 that I've read are not, that's another area that signals acceptance of views outside of rigid concordism.

But I listen to more old testament scholarship than new testament. It's easier for me to comment on OT concepts than on the current status of NT scholarship though I am aware of well respected NT scholars that view the works of Jesus in more symbolic ways as well.

It's all ok a scale. It's rare to find two people who have exactly the same views no matter what church you're at or denomination you adhere to.

Akita Suggagaki said:

It is not an all or nothing situation. The Bible has many books and many genres. It takes discernment and historical consciousness to sift through it all and even then there will be differences of opinion and interpretation.

Click to expand...

I really, really do hear what you're saying but I'm not sure I'm coming across as intended.

If it takes discernment, historical consciousness and 'sifting' along with opinion and interpretation, why are we pretending the bible has any authority at all?

Jesus did not die for our sins for us all to interpret why He did this, to argue if He really descended from Israel, or really walked on water, or performed miracles, did He?

It would seem to me that it would be entirely reckless to just leave everything so open to question.

God knows that we're born with logic and common sense.

Logic and common sense holds that God would foresee that we would not all be versed in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic etc and we would not, thousands of years later, be familiar with the individual customs of individual people and would not, or could not, accept these things as written based on these questions.

We also wouldn't all have access to the answers.

And, it seems to me, there are no answers at all if they are all subjective.

So, did the churches fail to assist throughout all of this time transition or what?

Do we need a scholarship to understand the bible?

My dad freaked out on me, telling me the bible was too complicated so he didn't read it and, instead, just put his trust in God.

At the time, I thought he was being dramatic but maybe he has a point.

Job 33:6 said:

Because Jesus walking on water isn't part of a core doctrine or creed to believe as a literal historical narrative, someone could view it symbolically and it wouldn't be heresy. I would say that, at least in my experience, it isn't uncommon among evangelicals or especially mainline protestants to consider this story to be symbolically true, even if it may be a minority view.

I take my information from Protestant, typically evangelical scholarship. For example, there are some very well known, well respected and conservative, inerrancy affirming, evangelical scholars of Bible that view Adam as being a typological figure but not necessarily a literal one. It's actually not uncommon. I have a couple examples of this before, John Walton and Tremper Longman III are relatively popular and well respected. If I had to guess, I would say that majority of conservative Bible scholars today are not young earth creationists either. 9/10 that I've read are not, that's another area that signals acceptance of views outside of rigid concordism.

But I listen to more old testament scholarship than new testament. It's easier for me to comment on OT concepts than on the current status of NT scholarship though I am aware of well respected NT scholars that view the works of Jesus in more symbolic ways as well.

It's all ok a scale. It's rare to find two people who have exactly the same views no matter what church you're at or denomination you adhere to.

Click to expand...

But, if the stories in the bible aren't core doctrine, then why have them included at all?

To add to confusion? To make a book instead of a sheet of paper?

I don't get it but I don't know. I haven't had the same exposure to your education, I guess, which is why I'm baffled and have so many questions.

I read the bible every night but I don't see the point if it is all fairy tale.

ChubbyCherub said:

But, if the stories in the bible aren't core doctrine, then why have them included at all?

To add to confusion? To make a book instead of a sheet of paper?

I don't get it but I don't know. I haven't had the same exposure to your education, I guess, which is why I'm baffled and have so many questions.

I read the bible every night but I don't see the point if it is all fairy tale.

Click to expand...

This is like asking why the Bible includes things like the book of proverbs with lady folly and lady wisdom. We don't go out in the world expecting to meet these figures as literal women. Some parts of scriptures, similar to things like Jesus's parables can be true in a variety of ways without needing to be literal history.

What do you think the point of the book of proverbs is if lady wisdom and lady folly are not literally real people?

And you've asked before, where do you draw the line? And I would point to things like historical context, like Jonah or the King of Babylon sinking to the underworld. But these are gray areas where you'll find a variety of views outside of 1st order topics. And that's just a normal part of the church not being monolithic.

It's ok to have questions and it's ok to live with tension in the text.

Some in the church see the stories such as Jesus walking on water as symbolic or theological narrative, even if it’s seemingly presented as historical. That’s a secondary-order question, not core doctrine.

ChubbyCherub said:

Thanks.

There is another thread where it has been suggested that Adam is symbolic so that's where my comments have followed through to here.

Click to expand...

Ah, ok. I understand.

ChubbyCherub said:

But, if the stories in the bible aren't core doctrine, then why have them included at all?

To add to confusion? To make a book instead of a sheet of paper?

I don't get it but I don't know. I haven't had the same exposure to your education, I guess, which is why I'm baffled and have so many questions.

I read the bible every night but I don't see the point if it is all fairy tale.

Click to expand...

Some of us, like myself, do our best to approach the Bible in a Maximalist historiographical way, and if it turns out that I put a big "?" on the first eleven chapters of Genesis, it's not because scholars have told me to do so. Rather, due to my fixation on the academic study of History and Philosophy, it's simply where I end up: with many questions that aren't completely answerable for which I, (in my epistemic weakness), regret to say that I don't know what to do with those questions since the answers have never been clear and complete.

However, even though the first 11 chapters of Genesis cause me some minor philosophical and historical fits, I more or less take the Bible as representing varying levels of 'historical writing,' starting from Chapter 12 and on. I only apply allegory or symbolism to those texts in the Bible that I think a writer, like Paul in the letter to the Galatians, specifically indicates he is doing so. Otherwise, on texts I can't make out as being clearly historical, I assume that my understanding of them is unfortunately undetermined by the many complicated epistemological factors I've had to plow through.

For me, the Bible is a collection of diverse, ancient, foreign, religious books that I don't treat dichotomously (that is, in an "either it's all this or it's all not that" fashion). Most of the biblical literature, as far as I can tell, is of a more historically oriented theology, and I have less problem historically with the New Testament than I do with the Old Testament (Genesis specifically). If the New Testament writers indicate that Jesus walked on water, I tend to ignore allegorical interpretations and think He actually walked on water and calmed storms.

ChubbyCherub said:

it takes discernment, historical consciousness and 'sifting' along with opinion and interpretation, why are we pretending the bible has any authority at all?

Click to expand...

Because it does have moral authority. But like it or not, we still must work to apply it in our life snd time.

Naturally some people have what ever it takes to go deeper. Others are satisfied at superficial meaning. The important thing is the moral instruction and how we live it out.

Still a great video for those interested in questions of symbolism vs literalism in the old testament. A survey of historical perspectives on old testament cosmology:

Thanks all for your assistance. I feel very lost and confused and thought CF would assist but it keeps dragging me further away because questions lead to questions instead of answers. I will definitely look at any and all info, including the video you suggested @Job 33:6 and appreciate everyone's assistance and patience, as always, CC

ChubbyCherub said:

Thanks all for your assistance. I feel very lost and confused and thought CF would assist but it keeps dragging me further away because questions lead to questions instead of answers. I will definitely look at any and all info, including the video you suggested @Job 33:6 and appreciate everyone's assistance and patience, as always, CC

Click to expand...

Try not to let it get to you. Part of the problem is that not all theological or historical questions about the Bible have accessible or clear answers and we all have to use our best intuitions and analyses about what we think the answers are.

2PhiloVoid said:

Try not to let it get to you. Part of the problem is that not all theological or historical questions about the Bible have accessible or clear answers and we all have to use our best intuitions and analyses about what we think the answers are.

Click to expand...

I was surprised to find how much we really don't know about the Bible. Not that it's a salvation issue. But just, the ancient nature of the text is just inherently very complicated and difficult to understand. And in fact, as you've said, many things appear to be truly inaccessible. Like I think about 100 years ago before the dead sea scrolls. History naturally can be difficult to understand, and with that, the original context becomes obscure. Particularly in the old testament where we don't have the best records of things. Even Hebrew words alone, you have 1 use in the entire Bible, with no external historical resources that use that same word. And the best hebrew scholars are kind of just wrestling to understand what the word even means. I see that on occasion.

Matters not central to salvation. But it's surprising to discover these things.