Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why not take everything literal?ArcticFox said:When the Bible is interpreted allegorically, and this line of interpretation is open to any aspect of the Bible, then it ceases to be useful for any purposes other than nice stories that we might learn a lesson from.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM
Even if young earth creationism is false, it seems to at least be logically consistent.
Must a literal interpretation of the Bible require a 6000-year-old universe?
When the Bible is interpreted allegorically, and this line of interpretation is open to any aspect of the Bible, then it ceases to be useful for any purposes other than nice stories that we might learn a lesson from.
If one is unwilling to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible in Genesis 1-3, perhaps one would accept Romans 5?
If both are labeled allegorical (contrary to the nature of the writings and the way the authors wrote), there is no hope for useful discussion; further discussion will only press more Scripture into the "allegorical" category and damage the ability of others to learn from it.
I thank God for his sovereign promise that his Word would not return to him empty; were it not for his sovereign power, the Word would indeed be rendered useless and void at every turn by this world and its crooked ways.
A very young universe, which is why YECs go back no more than 20,000 years. After all, read literally, creation took place in Genesis 1 in six 24 hour days. And humans were on day 6 along with all the mammals, etc. This doesn't allow an old universe with lots of time before humans existed.
lucaspa said:A very young universe, which is why YECs go back no more than 20,000 years. After all, read literally, creation took place in Genesis 1 in six 24 hour days. And humans were on day 6 along with all the mammals, etc. This doesn't allow an old universe with lots of time before humans existed.
How could there be 24-hour days before the creation of the sun?
Given the various meanings of the Hebrew "yom," the most literal interpretation of Genesis does not seem to be young earth creationism.
How could there be 24-hour days before the creation of the sun?
Also, Genesis 2 gives a different sequence of events and depicts humans as being created before animals and stuff...
So which literal sequence do we follow?
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom]that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Here we have the entire creation described as a single yom.In Genesis 2:1-3 we see the modification of the word "yom" to "beyom" for "day". Why? Because "yom" can be indistinct whereas "beyom" is limited to a 24 hour day. With God resting on the seventh day, beyom is used to be sure that rest didn't extend to an indefinite period.
I've always found it strange how YECs think stories are worthless. How do you know that our Bible passages aren't precisely that: nice stories that we might learn a lesson from?
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. Did you interpret my comment as sarcastic? Did you not take me literally when I said, "nice stories?" Well, please take my words at their face value. They are nice stories that teach us lessons, but ultimately they are useless because they offer no more assurance than the nice stories that Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Shintoism can offer us. If they are merely stories, why not believe the stories of other religions? We have confidence in God because he does more than the other "gods" do; he isn't based in myths, nor do his followers offer us myths and legends with no truth. Instead, we are offered history as it really happened, the truth of God's work throughout the lives of his people and the rest of mankind.If nice stories couldn't do these things all the time, why would Jesus pepper the Gospels chock-full of nice (and not so nice) stories? Suppose you had a Christian who thinks that the Parable of the Prodigal Son was just a nice story to learn a lesson from, and you had another Christian who thinks that the Parable of the Prodigal Son literally and historically happened. Would you say that the second Christian has gained more from it than the first Christian? Certainly not! A metaphorical interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son loses no clout to a historical-literal interpretation of it (and the parable itself is never explicitly labeled a parable, being reported in straight narrative).
Actually, I didn't present any interpretation of Genesis whatsoever. You are now merely assuming that I am like others that you have met and spoken to, and thus conversation is useless if you refuse to acknowledge that I am not "just another one of them." This is the most frequent problem I encounter when discussing the whole realm of Evolution and the Bible, is that I am immediately labeled and tossed into a pile with every other person who dares to challenge one aspect of the TE position. It is impolite and improper, for only a fool answers a case before he hears it (Proverbs 18:13 If one gives an answer before he hears,Your literal-historical interpretation of Genesis 1 does not tell us one word about Christianity proper - it makes interesting claims about the earth, the universe, life, and man, but not a peep about God that has not already been assumed. So we don't have anything to lose in rejecting it. The Bible has never been crippled by reading it as a good story, for a good story will edify a man more than a thousand scientific beliefs.
Then I have a couple questions. I will not just assume you are like "every other TE I've met," so I'm asking you. That is common courtesy in a debate, you know. Who is Adam? Who was Eve? Were they real people, and when and where did they live (to the best of your knowledge)?And yet evolution has no quarrel with Romans 5 - no TE here denies that all sin in Adam and live in Christ.
Keep hammering on this point! We've got 2 creation stories ( and a third in Genesis 5) and they contradict when read literally. That's a neon sign NOT to read them literally.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. Did you interpret my comment as sarcastic? Did you not take me literally when I said, "nice stories?" Well, please take my words at their face value. They are nice stories that teach us lessons, but ultimately they are useless because they offer no more assurance than the nice stories that Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Shintoism can offer us. If they are merely stories, why not believe the stories of other religions? We have confidence in God because he does more than the other "gods" do; he isn't based in myths, nor do his followers offer us myths and legends with no truth. Instead, we are offered history as it really happened, the truth of God's work throughout the lives of his people and the rest of mankind.
There's a big difference between the following two narratives; which one, if any, seem inappropriate? Neither of these things really happened:
Scenario 1: "Hey, let me tell you a story. Say there's this guy, and he comes over to me and pulls a gun on me and demands my money. Say I give him all my money, and tells me that if I don't take him to my house, he'll kill me. Should I take him to the house, even though my family is there?"
Scenario 2: "Yesterday, I ran into this strange guy on the street. He started asking me lots of weird questions, and then pulled a gun on me and demanded all my money. I gave it to him, but then he said I had to show him where I lived, so I took him to the house."
Would you simply say in Scenario 2, "well my friend (my dear), I'm sure you're speaking allegorically here, because that doesn't seem like a realistic thing based on the evidence. You must have some significant meaning for me here."
Of course not. You would immediately attempt to confirm that this narrative is indeed true. "Are you serious? What happened? Are you okay?" When you are told it is not true, your reaction would depend on the relationship, but if this were an otherwise serious person who had never pulled such a stunt, you would likely seriously question why he would make such a story up to you.
Which leads to my next reason for rejecting TE: death and suffering. I already spoke some of how death cannot be present prior to sin in a previous post, but suffering is central too.
Genesis 3:16a To the woman he said,
I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
So would a believer in TE suggest that birthing was pain-less during this whole TE process? I would suspect, however, that perhaps even this verse must now become an allegory, and therefore the ravages of sin lose their meaning because they are no longer truly the punishment (the result) of sin, but simply a way of life that has been around from the beginning.
How about Genesis 3:17-19, the curse on the land that will now be a difficult toil? Were these pre-human primates producing vegetation in ease before the sin of the first man?
Again, the whole nature of Creation, sin, death, and suffering is called into question by an allegorical rendering of Genesis 1-3. It creates problems with numerous other passages of Scripture, where the authors (including Christ) seem to be confused as to the fact that Genesis 1-3 didn't really happen (Christ, Paul, Jude, and others seem to think that it really happened).
Additionally, this is a summary point: there is nothing at all beautiful, majestic, or divine about Evolution. It is a dirty process of death, suffering, destruction, and the perversion (mutation) of the essence of biological life (DNA). There is also absolutely no sense in such a creation mechanism, especially not for a God of good; TE would make God into the direct Creator of death and suffering, who seeks the death and suffering of his creation with no sensible reason. That is to say, he is entirely able to do exactly what he said he did in Genesis 1: create the world out of nothing, and do it in a short time frame. He wants his people to work six days and rest on the seventh, and so he does the same himself.
I am in good company when I take Genesis 1-3 as literal; in fact, it's the best company you can be in.
Romans 5:12 is not talking about death in animals. It only say death spread to all men, and gives the reason this happened, 'because all sinned'. If death of animals is not the result of Adam's sin then there is no reason why this death should not have been in the world, part of the natural order God created, before man was formed.Also, please explain to me your interpretation of Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
If sin entered the world through one man (Adam), how death entered through sin, how did death bring about Adam (Macro Evolution as the origin of man)? How did a process bring about a result that caused that original process?
Please follow my logic here so that you can formulate a good response:
A causes B, which causes C. It is a cause and effect relationship.
However, TE teaches that C causes A. It is a logical fallacy to believe that C causes A but that A is the result of C at the same time (being that it is not an endless loop).
If TE is true, than the Trinity is not the ultimate mystery of logic: the nature of Adam, sin, and death is the ultimate mystery of logic and reason.
Finding food appealing to the eyes and good to eat, being formed to with bodies that appreciate and hunger after nice food does not tell us anything about the morality of taking food that does not belong to us. Morality is bigger than the way we were made, as Eve found out in the story.Although I have never been a staunch believer in Macro Evolution as the origin of species, I do not ultimately have any scientific reason for rejecting this view of Evolution (though I have many, many, many serious questions and doubts); my reasons are ultimately theological, based on Scripture. For me, there is no question: should Scripture and any human theories or science seem to be at odds, it is my duty to believe in the Scriptures first, and interpret the rest of life through that. When one researcher stated that he believed rape was a natural part of sexuality, and that men were meant to participate in rape in order to advance the species, I rejected it; it may be somewhat natural to us in our fallen nature, but it is indeed not "the way men are supposed to be." I reject it on the grounds that the Scriptures teach us otherwise. Same with Evolution.
Oh dear. You have fallen into the trap of passing judgments on others: It is impolite and improper, for only a fool answers a case before he hears it (Proverbs 18:13 If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.)There are basically only three essential reasons for rendering Genesis 1-3 as allegorical:
1) You are inherently skeptical of religious texts or claims to truth. You simply, in general, view all religious claims (particularly miraculous ones) as being untrue in the empirical sense.
2) You have some moral or intellectual obstacle that makes a literal interpretation difficult for your lifestyle and/or world-view.
3) Although it can be said to belong to #2, I'll make it separate: you have a scientific belief in Macro Evolution, and allow that to dictate how you interpret the Scriptures.
Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away from them every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; neither will there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more. The first things have passed away." It sound to me like death and pain were part of the original creation, 'the first things' and will only disappear with the new creation.Let me place them side-by-side for comparison:
ME = Macro Evolution as origin of species, S = Scripture
ME: Death is a natural part of the cycle of life.
S: Death is an unnatural result of sin, and was never the intended plan for mankind (Rev. 21:4, James 1:15)
And death spread to all men because all sinned. So how do animals die? If their death is not the result of Adam's sin then why shouldn't it have been around since life began.ME: Death has been around since life
S: Death entered into the world only after Adam, a man, sinned (Romans 5:12)
Death never brought anybody into existence. That is down to creature obeying God first command, being fruitful and multiplying.ME: Death brought Adam into existence.
S: Adam brought death into existence (through sin; Romans 5:12).
Actually Romans does not connect the world groaning with sin.ME: The world and biological life continue to develop, following the course of survival of the fittest.
S: The whole world groans in pain because of sin (Romans 8:22)
If you assume we are supposed to interpret God's days literally, a mistake we are warned about by both Moses and Peter.ME: The world and biological life were created in billions of years.
S: The world and all life in it were created in 6 days (Genesis 1).
God as a potter, or forming people out of dust or clay, is a very common metaphor in the bible.ME: Mankind evolved slowly and gradually from the primate family.
S: Man was created instantly from the "dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7).
According to Genesis, Paul and Jesus himself, Adam and Eve being 'one flesh' is an allegorical illustration of the sexual union in marriage.ME: Woman evolved simultaneously with man in this gradual process of evolution.
S: Woman was created from man, from his rib (Genesis 2:22).
There is no justification for using the pluperfect 'had formed', the verb is in the same tense as verbs throughout the narrative which are translated with a simple past tense. The actual grammatical form of these verbs is what is called the 'waw consecutive' which is used to describe a consecutive series of events. God creating the beasts comes after God saying "it is not good for man to be alone." The use of the waw consecutive through out the narrative shows us very specifically that these events are being described in order. The fact that the order contradicts the order (with waw consecutives again) in chapter one tells us that one or both of the narratives are not meant literally.Is this a creation narrative? It is not in any way. This is the history of the Garden of Eden, in which Adam is brought to it. The statement that God "formed every beast of the field" can easily be rendered "had formed." There are two reasonable interpretations:
1) This is merely a statement that God had formed all of the animals, and now he is bringing these animals he made to Adam; there is no statement that this is the order of any creation, nor that they are being created right then and there for the first time to be brought to Adam.
2) These animals are specifically created in and/or for the Garden of Eden in order to achieve the immediate goal: find a helpmate for Adam.
It's very possible that people completely overlook the fact that creation is finished in its basic form, and now God is tending to the Garden of Eden where he will place his newly created man, Adam.
The story of God creating Adam, and vegetation, beasts, livestock birds and woman is not a creation narrative?Look again at this supposed "Creation narrative" in Genesis 2. See how the emphasis is on what God is doing in the Garden of Eden. Re-read this passage of Scripture with an eye to what is going on here based on the context, and it will be easy to understand. If you read this passage with the already held belief that it's another Creation narrative, you will of course find flaws with it; it's not a Creation narrative!
I understand your frustration, but have you ever though that you may be doing the same thing yourself? We have a story where God sees that Adam is alone and then he creates all the animals and bring them to Adam to name. But apparently this is not what the story says. The animals were actually created earlier. I think TEs actually treat the story with much more respect and integrity allowing it to say what it says without twisting the meaning to fit our preconceived interpretive frameworks. It is what the story says and the way it says it that tells us it is giving an allegorical description of creation, a parable of the creation and fall rather than literal history.We live in a very twisted and corrupt world where learned men and women in universities can sit around a table and make an author's "yes" mean "no" and their "no" mean "yes." We do things to people's writings that we would never, ever want done to our own. Those in western society used to sit around tables and use all their knowledge of reason, logic, history, and literature to try to determine the original intent of the author to his original audience, and then we declared that to be the "truth" of a document. Now, we sit around and theorize about how we feel about it, what ideas a document "conjures up" in our heads as we read it, what we think the "deeper" or "secret" meaning could have been. What one person thinks it means and what another thinks it means is irrelevant; what is important is that everyone gets something out of it. This is wrong! This is horrible! This does great violence to the Scriptures!
A good question, but surely we should look at each passage and try to understand what it means rather than using an one size fits all framework to fit them all? If I do not understand how to interpet Gen 4 and 5, it does not mean I ignore the allegory and symbolism in Gen 1-3.And, of course, another obvious reason that there is no sufficient grounds for a literal interpretation is what follows these narratives: nothing special. There is no clear start and stop to this supposed "allegory;" that is, the "story" keeps going with Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Seth, right down into Noah, Lot, Abram, Sarai, etc. At exactly what point do we stop this allegorical interpretation? Do we ever stop interpreting allegorically? Genesis is not broken into chapters and verses, as most of you probably already know; documents simply kept going on and on.
I pose the serious question as to the alleged allegory of Genesis. At what point does the allegory cease and real history begin? Does it ever stop? Do we stop the allegory somewhere in Genesis at all, or do we just continue on until the end of the Pentateuch? Do we even stop the allegory for the opening of the NT with the epistles and gospels? These are legitimate challenges.
How about from when God created of mankind? Jesus is discussing God's plan for man and wife, not the creation of the world, is there any reason to read the beginning of creation as the begining of the creation of the world? Besides if you read Genesis literally, Adam and Eve were formed at the end of the creation not the begining.Another challenge to the allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is the treatment of these Scriptures as history. Note the arguments used by Jesus in the gospels, as well as Paul in the epistles:
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
What does "from the beginning of creation" mean? Billions of years after God created the world, guided Evolution leads to a man? Does that qualify as "from the beginning of creation?" I definitely do not agree. Was even Jesus himself fooled by Genesis 1-3, believing them to be literal when they were really allegory? If Christ treated them as literal, I want to do the same.
Where Adam is described as a figure of Christ showing us Paul is actually discussing Adam allegorically here.See Paul's treatment of Genesis as literal in the following verses:
Romans 5
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. Note the use of the present tense. We are in Adam now and die in Adam the way we will be made alive in Christ. This is looking at Adam as a present allegorical figure that sums up the whole mortal human race.1 Corinthians 15:22
1 Corinthians 15:45
Why do people always leave out the last verse?1 Timothy 2:13-14
Jude does not say what Adam was, just where Enoch comes in the book of Genesis.Note how Jude treats Adam as a literal, individual human in Jude 14.
Oh dear. You have fallen into the trap of passing judgments on others: It is impolite and improper, for only a fool answers a case before he hears it (Proverbs 18:13 If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.)
There is another reason for a non literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.
4) An appreciation of the text itself, and how the rest of scripture interprets the text shows it was not meant as a literal narrative.
Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away from them every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; neither will there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more. The first things have passed away." It sound to me like death and pain were part of the original creation, 'the first things' and will only disappear with the new creation.
Death never brought anybody into existence. That is down to creature obeying God first command, being fruitful and multiplying.
God as a potter, or forming people out of dust or clay, is a very common metaphor in the bible.
According to Genesis, Paul and Jesus himself, Adam and Eve being 'one flesh' is an allegorical illustration of the sexual union in marriage.
There is no justification for using the pluperfect 'had formed', the verb is in the same tense as verbs throughout the narrative which are translated with a simple past tense. The actual grammatical form of these verbs is what is called the 'waw consecutive' which is used to describe a consecutive series of events. God creating the beasts comes after God saying "it is not good for man to be alone." The use of the waw consecutive through out the narrative shows us very specifically that these events are being described in order. The fact that the order contradicts the order (with waw consecutives again) in chapter one tells us that one or both of the narratives are not meant literally.
A second creation of animal and birds seems an even stranger twist. Why would God create more animals after he had gone to all the trouble of creating the first lot and telling them to fill the earth? Why would Adam only name the animals from the second batch? Why would Genesis lay such emphasis on Adam naming all the animals if he ignored all of the first creation? And when did God create all livestock and every bird of the heaven that Adam named? After Adam was created Gen 2:19&20, or before Adam Gen 1:21&25?
The story of God creating Adam, and vegetation, beasts, livestock birds and woman is not a creation narrative?
I understand your frustration, but have you ever though that you may be doing the same thing yourself? We have a story where God sees that Adam is alone and then he creates all the animals and bring them to Adam to name. But apparently this is not what the story says. The animals were actually created earlier. I think TEs actually treat the story with much more respect and integrity allowing it to say what it says without twisting the meaning to fit our preconceived interpretive frameworks. It is what the story says and the way it says it that tells us it is giving an allegorical description of creation, a parable of the creation and fall rather than literal history.
A good question, but surely we should look at each passage and try to understand what it means rather than using an one size fits all framework to fit them all? If I do not understand how to interpet Gen 4 and 5, it does not mean I ignore the allegory and symbolism in Gen 1-3.
How about from when God created of mankind? Jesus is discussing God's plan for man and wife, not the creation of the world, is there any reason to read the beginning of creation as the begining of the creation of the world? Besides if you read Genesis literally, Adam and Eve were formed at the end of the creation not the begining.
Another thing to consider is that 'the beginning of creation' is a common idiom, like 'the end of the earth' an idiom we do not take literally.
Where Adam is described as a figure of Christ showing us Paul is actually discussing Adam allegorically here.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. Note the use of the present tense. We are in Adam now and die in Adam the way we will be made alive in Christ. This is looking at Adam as a present allegorical figure that sums up the whole mortal human race.
1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
Only two people in this allegorical picture and they sum up the entire human race between them. There have been plenty of people named Adam since but according to Paul Jesus was the last Adam. If we read Genesis literally Cain was the second man andnthere have been billions since, but according to Paul Jesus was the second man. Paul is not speaking literal history here.
Why do people always leave out the last verse?
1Tim 2:15Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Verses 13-14 treat Gen 2&3 as an illustration of how husband and wife should relate, and allegorical lesson drawn from the passage. Verse 15 make no sense whatsoever if we take Paul as speaking literally.
We need to realise that Paul the Rabbi could be a lot more rabbinical in his teaching than we may expect.
Jude does not say what Adam was, just where Enoch comes in the book of Genesis.
Why not take everything literal?
Why not believe that revelations is literal?
Why not believing that blacksmith and the waster were created by god ex nihilo? (Isa 54:10)
I raise this question from time to time, no respond from a YEC so far ...
Wow, that's a lot of material you've brought up there. I apologize for wrongly considering you a YEC; at the same time, it's apparent that you have as many mistaken first impressions of our beliefs as I have of yours.
The parables are NOT true. However, they teach us truths; that is why they are parables, and they are clearly so. Jesus explains the meanings of several of his parables directly. In fact, no one questioned that Christ was speaking in parables when he was. In fact, the problem is when they thought he was speaking allegorically when he wasn't (speaking about his death).Now, as I understand your concept, a "just-so" story from any of the world's religions is the same, and I can switch one for another. Once a story has no historicity there is no other standard by which we can judge its truthfulness.
If that is true, by what standard are the parables true, since they have no historicity? And if they offer us "no more assurance than the nice stories that other religions offer us", why are they in the Bible?
I understand your point, but these issues still offer nothing convincing. The reason is simple: it is obvious that these are parables! No one is questioning these, and in fact they are explained as parables.Of course we would try to confirm whether or not a narrative is historical. But whoever said they have to be? Narratives that put on the air of historicity are a dime a dozen, and I'm not just talking about April Fool jokes like TiSP or Gmail Paper. People have serious reasons to make narratives sound serious. I've used the exact technique you describe here on these forums. Why, the Bible itself has a case of mistaken literalness:
David knew it was a parable, because Nathan made that clear! Nathan did not leave David in the dark about what he was getting at. However, with Genesis, we are clearly left in the dark as to the significance of this "parable." And still, there is nothing to clearly (or even partially) qualify it as a parable.David took it literally and thought there was an actual rich man to get angry about. No doubt his next question would have been which city this had taken place in so that the rich man could have been brought to justice. But if David had been able to take it figuratively, would he not have perceived in a moment that he was the man? A narrative can be at its most powerful when it is most unreal - the story which slips past the "dragons at the door" (as C.S. Lewis put it) and explodes in our minds.
I just cannot subscribe in even the slightest to such a position. I see it as only a harmful misinterpretation. Although it isn't a damning heresy, it is very destructive and dangerous. I just cannot see any use of good hermeneutics ever producing such a view of Adam and Eve. I mean no disrespect, as you have been entirely respectful, but I see these kinds of arguments as the mere musings of worldly philosophers, nothing at all consistent with the Scriptural presentation of this information.About Adam and Eve, countless threads have discussed this here. My personal feelings about it (as well as a look at Romans 5, though in a slightly different context) are best explained here.
As a convinced Calvinist (missing the Limited Atonement), I know what it is to have a God that just isn't as "clean and neat" as we would think he'd be. I know that God and the problem of evil is much bigger than we could imagine, and that God is perhaps closer to this situation than we would like to admit. However, I think we both agree that we know and are confident in God's goodness, love, and holiness.That there is nothing at all beautiful, majestic, or divine about evolution is a subjective matter, and honestly, the more I study evolution the more I am amazed by its simplicity and completeness as a tool of God. But I appreciate your point. The difficulty of theodicy seems to be more acute from an evolutionary perspective: the world is full of suffering and death, so if this is how it has always been, how can we let God off the hook?
I agree our answers to these deeper, unanswered questions will always be limited. This new concept of a clean cut, easy to grasp God of love is the product of modern apologists who have tried to make God more palatable to the world. However, I disagree that he never made a "perfect creation."God's answer to theodicy is very different from our answer, and it doesn't invoke a perfect creation anywhere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?