Removing the stumbling-block

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Malaka:

I have every right to include bracketed notes of what I believe the author meant in a given point. That is why it is in brackets and described as my own interpretation. In any case, you can read the text and see for yourself if I am right. While I think it is obvious from the text of what I quoted, I thought it flowed better with my bracketed notes. If you think he was talking about something else entirely, I simply disagree with you.

Arkguy:

As for the point you wanted me to retract, is was not my point, but that of the author. You can write to him and ask him to retract it. Given the fact that even on this fairly slow forum, the fact that two of the handful of authors actually posting on this thread fall directly into the category the author described (those who nearly lost their faith due to YECism) seems to prove his point. I know a number of others myself.

Taking the Bible non-literally does not mean you disbelieve the Bible. Since *you* read parts non-literally, does that mean you disbelieve the rest?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Ark Guy said:
wblastyn, if Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, then why is it presented as such?

It's not. It only appears that way in English.

1. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

Names:
"Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth". When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath. Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song.


The New Testament doesn't present it as an allegorical story...

Yes, it does. When Paul uses Adam he is using him as symbolic to highlight the symbolism of Jesus' death. When Jesus refers back to Genesis, he is using it for THEOLOGY always, never history. The famous one is Mark 10:1-10. Notice that Jesus specifically says that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, not God, and that Moses got it wrong! He used the creation of men and women in Genesis 1:26-27 as a theological argument against divorce, not as literal history.

Why does the New Testament present an allegorical Adam with a literal Jesus?

Because Jesus was historical/literal and Adam is allegorical.

Or a allegorical Noah with a literal Abraham?

Again, probably because that is the way it is. SOMEBODY had to start the tribes of Israel. Whether it was actually Abraham or somebody else, there has to have been a historical first of the tribe.

Why does the NT genealogy of Jesus start with God then Adam? Where in thhat list of ancestors does it turn from literal to allegorical?

:) At the beginning. After all, those geneologies trace thru Joseph and Joseph isn't Jesus' father, is he?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Malaka said:
This was the first one in my search....

http://www.j-e-s-u-s.org/quest.htm

Malaka, I went to the site. Here are some interesting quotes from the author:

"I am inclined to go with Gordon Wenham's view as outlined in the Word Biblical Commentary that the book of Genesis underwent its final "editing" during the monarchy period.[1] For instance, Genesis 36:31 presupposes and refers to a kingdom in Israel, which is yet 500 years from Moses' time but the textual referent is as though it had already existed. Thus, I believe the text had explanatory words layered on or added on up to David's time. However, whatever process through which Torah came to us, it is both divinely inspired yet humanly written."

"When God used the hand and heart of Moses to write Genesis, Moses took old traditions he had heard and used them in his writing. For instance, the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and the Flood were known to humankind before Moses inscripturated them. They had lived from mouth to mouth, heart to heart. "

How does that fit with your Biblical literalism?
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
lucaspa said:
[/color]

YECs are the bad guys.

It the Finding of Facts in that trial, the YECs stated flatly that the Creator in YEC did NOT have to be God! Need any more evidence?


.


Yes... could you send me to the specific quote? I looked for that court report (Finding of Facts) and couldn't find it.





~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Malaka said:
Yes... could you send me to the specific quote? I looked for that court report (Finding of Facts) and couldn't find it.

~malaka~

"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence."
It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.
The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82.


BTW, Vawter is a Catholic priest. Gilkey (who testified at the trial) is also a Catholic priest.
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
lucaspa said:
Malaka, I went to the site. Here are some interesting quotes from the author:

"I am inclined to go with Gordon Wenham's view as outlined in the Word Biblical Commentary that the book of Genesis underwent its final "editing" during the monarchy period.[1] For instance, Genesis 36:31 presupposes and refers to a kingdom in Israel, which is yet 500 years from Moses' time but the textual referent is as though it had already existed. Thus, I believe the text had explanatory words layered on or added on up to David's time. However, whatever process through which Torah came to us, it is both divinely inspired yet humanly written."

"When God used the hand and heart of Moses to write Genesis, Moses took old traditions he had heard and used them in his writing. For instance, the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and the Flood were known to humankind before Moses inscripturated them. They had lived from mouth to mouth, heart to heart. "

How does that fit with your Biblical literalism?



I identified in my posting that I did a search, and that was the first item that came up. I didn't say that I supported the site... and I didn't endorse it in my comment other than it was the first to come up. I did identify my source as elsewhere. So, therefore, I have no comment on your posting.

Now, if you want to discuss the source I cited... that would be a different story.


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
lucaspa said:
"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence."
It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.
The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82.


BTW, Vawter is a Catholic priest. Gilkey (who testified at the trial) is also a Catholic priest.


No wonder you despise people who represent young earth theology.... but THAT is not what I believe, nor, do I imagine that it is the theology of any YEC on this forum.

But you may continue to use that source.

Therefore, since I do not believe what the state of Arkansas has determined that young earth creationists believe.... I guess you will just have to refer to me as "Bible thumper".


BTW... I don't live in Arkansas...


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Malaka said:
No wonder you despise people who represent young earth theology.... but THAT is not what I believe, nor, do I imagine that it is the theology of any YEC on this forum.

But you may continue to use that source.

Therefore, since I do not believe what the state of Arkansas has determined that young earth creationists believe.... I guess you will just have to refer to me as "Bible thumper".

Malaka, I'm afraid you don't understand. That "finding of fact" was not given by the state of Arkansas. It was given by Henry Morris and Duane Gish, the Director and Associate Director of the Institute of Creation Research. It represents the official position the only YEC organization present at the time.

This IS Creation Science. So, you can either agree with it or abandon Creation Science.

What is more, it is the ONLY position when you take creationism to science. The new Intelligent Design Movement says the same thing! They realize that science can't give them the identity of the ID, so they separate the ID/Creator from the God of the Bible and say quite frankly that ID as a scientific theory can't make the link.

It is the Gnostic and Marcionist heresy all over again.

It doesn't matter that you personally believe that the Creator of Creation Science is God. Creation Science itself says these things.

Creationism is inherently heresy.
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
lucaspa said:
Malaka, I'm afraid you don't understand. That "finding of fact" was not given by the state of Arkansas. It was given by Henry Morris and Duane Gish, the Director and Associate Director of the Institute of Creation Research. It represents the official position the only YEC organization present at the time.

This IS Creation Science. So, you can either agree with it or abandon Creation Science.

What is more, it is the ONLY position when you take creationism to science. The new Intelligent Design Movement says the same thing! They realize that science can't give them the identity of the ID, so they separate the ID/Creator from the God of the Bible and say quite frankly that ID as a scientific theory can't make the link.

It is the Gnostic and Marcionist heresy all over again.

It doesn't matter that you personally believe that the Creator of Creation Science is God. Creation Science itself says these things.

Creationism is inherently heresy.


If you don't mind, I will wait until I receive a response to my email I just sent to the Institute where I quoted you and this thread before I make a response.

And, it is not the ONLY position that I can take... because I can TAKE God at His word that HE (the trinity being HE) created the world in six literal days.....

Until the Bible changes, I will continue to believe that.


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Plan 9

Absolutely Elsewhere
Jul 7, 2002
9,024
686
71
Deck Six, Cargo Bay Two; apply to Annabel Lee to l
Visit site
✟20,357.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Malaka said:
If you don't mind, I will wait until I receive a response to my email I just sent to the Institute where I quoted you and this thread before I make a response.



Which institute is this, please, Malaka?
 
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

Plan 9

Absolutely Elsewhere
Jul 7, 2002
9,024
686
71
Deck Six, Cargo Bay Two; apply to Annabel Lee to l
Visit site
✟20,357.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Malaka said:
"It was given by Henry Morris and Duane Gish, the Director and Associate Director of the Institute of Creation Research."




~malaka~



Are you planning to share the contents of the contents of this e-mail, supposing that you are given permission to do so?
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I bet I can guess what they will say. The game they are playing is the Creation Science/Intelligent Designer shell game. The Creation Scientists know that if they invoke the Christian God as *the* creator, they will argue themselves right out of the classroom, since our current legal/political approach is the strip all secular school teaching from any religious preferences. So, they support their Creation alternative to evolution in the form of non-religious "intelligent design" creationism, which is not anti-Christian, it just pretends to be non-religious.

This is, of course, entirely disingenuous and really annoys the true ID people. Those of us who are Creationist should stand up and say we believe in Creation due to our religious beliefs. As an old earth Creationist who believes in evolution as a method by which God created some (but not necessarily all) of the diverse life on Earth, I do not hesitate to point out that God and His Bible are the primary reason for my belief in God's creative acts. I do not pretend that I arrived at, or could arrive at, these beliefs absent the Word of God.
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
lucaspa said:
"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence."
It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.
The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82.


BTW, Vawter is a Catholic priest. Gilkey (who testified at the trial) is also a Catholic priest.


Well, when I had a little time, I went back to their site... and this is their posted doctrine... WHICH DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT YOU POSTED.


http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm


And since the site carries this disclaimer, I know that you didn't get your information from the site that you are criticizing.

"Nothing on this website may be reprinted in whole or in part without obtaining permission from ICR"


Now... I have a problem with your posting.


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Plan 9

Absolutely Elsewhere
Jul 7, 2002
9,024
686
71
Deck Six, Cargo Bay Two; apply to Annabel Lee to l
Visit site
✟20,357.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Malaka said:
Well, when I had a little time, I went back to their site... and this is their posted doctrine... WHICH DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT YOU POSTED.


http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm


And since the site carries this disclaimer, I know that you didn't get your information from the site that you are criticizing.

"Nothing on this website may be reprinted in whole or in part without obtaining permission from ICR"


Now... I have a problem with your posting.


~malaka~



Their court testimony is what's being quoted and that is what Lucaspa appears to me to be criticizing, and with good reason.

You may have a problem with his posting, but a lot of the rest of us truly enjoying reading his posts, whether we always agree with him or not.
 
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

Plan 9

Absolutely Elsewhere
Jul 7, 2002
9,024
686
71
Deck Six, Cargo Bay Two; apply to Annabel Lee to l
Visit site
✟20,357.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
lucaspa said:

Tell me, how do you interpret Luke 2:1? Was all the world taxed? Were Japanese, Sioux, and Russians taxed? Why not? Don't you believe what is written?

Or do you take extrabiblical evidence and re-interpret "all the world" to mean only the Roman world?

Now, if you can take extrabiblical evidence there, why not extrabiblical evidence to reinterpret Genesis?




Malaka, while you are waiting for your e-mail to arrive, perhaps you could reply to this part of lucaspa's post to you?
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Plan 9 said:
Their court testimony is what's being quoted and that is what Lucaspa appears to me to be criticizing, and with good reason.

You may have a problem with his posting, but a lot of the rest of us truly enjoying reading his posts, whether we always agree with him or not.


Trust me, there are certain indiscretions in this posting that I will not resort to doing.... though I see that many others do, yourself included. This has been another learning experience, thanks for your partipation in that experience.


Bye!
:wave:

~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Malaka said:
Trust me, there are certain indiscretions in this posting that I will not resort to doing.... though I see that many others do, yourself included. This has been another learning experience, thanks for your partipation in that experience.


Bye!
:wave:

~malaka~

Ah. Stage 4. Unsupported but explicitly claimed moral superiority.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Malaka said:
And, it is not the ONLY position that I can take... because I can TAKE God at His word that HE (the trinity being HE) created the world in six literal days.....

So, did you ever look up the word: "world" in your Bible?

Did you ever think that world is the made up of word with the letter L added. L is the twelveth letter in the alphabet. We first hear about Jesus when He was twelve years old, He had twelve disciples. There are twelve hours in the day.

I do not question that the "world" is 6000 years old. My question is how old is the earth? It is kinda like the difference between a house and a home.

1 John 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plan 9
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
Status
Not open for further replies.