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.
I like the idea of being a spectator watching someone say what I'm thinking only saying it much better than I ever could.
Except that each of the symbolic meanings I took from the Lord's supper are meanings drawn out in scripture.I would say that it means what Jesus said it meant, that it was his body broken for us. I don't like to add symbolic meaning where none is presented. Although we can gain "blessings" from such practices, they are at best conjectures.
All living creatures came originally from the dust of the earth and we become dust again (or mud depending on the climate, when we die. And God was behind the whole long process. But that is not the same as God sticking his fingers into a mud pie and moulding it into figure he then put his lips to and blows into. That is metaphor.But you see the point of view. I would say that it's because God did literally make us out of clay (the "dust" of Genesis 1). You would say that it's all a metaphor, including Genesis, right?
Free reign? We are simply trying to see what sort of literature we are dealing with here and interpreting it accordingly. We find clues in the text itself, Genesis telling us Adam was God's name for the people he created not a single individual or the poetic framework of Gen 1, as well as in how the rest of the bible interprets the section. We have Moses telling us in a Creation Psalm that God's days are not to be taken literally. We learn throughout scripture that the snake was really Satan, not a reptile. If the snake was an allegory, then how did Eve have a chat with an allegory unless she was allegorical too?We indeed know that Genesis is not written from a scientific perspective in any way you look at it. However, I don't believe that gives us free reign to see the entire narrative as an allegory.
Or it could all be metaphorical because we are all mortal and 'made of dust', but we are also made by God. We are 'in Adam' because Adam is the human race.A metaphor referring to a past event. He is calling us to account by reminding us of how we were formed. We are all "in Adam" in the sense that we are mankind, and in that sense we are all "formed out of clay." I believe it is the one time that is literal because it is the first time it occurs, and all subsequent uses seem to be reinforcing this creation account.
OK.I would have trouble with that assertion on numerous grounds. If we were to pursue this particular issue, I would want to do more research and better formulate my thoughts before offering my reasons.
I have started a thread [OPEN]If Genesis 1-3 is not meant literally, what does it mean?I would be interested in knowing what you and others with similar beliefs get out of a non-literal Genesis 1-3.
A problem is most of Genesis 1 and a large part of Genesis 2 are describing God's actions when there were not humans around to observe or record what happened. It was described to us by people whoThat is exactly how I treat the entirety of the Bible, sparing only clearly prophetical passages (I don't dare try to interpret prophecy before it is fulfilled; I don't think that's our responsibility, but that's another issue)...
Genesis 1-3 is biased in that the focus is on God and his relationship with his people, not on the exact mechanisms by which God is accomplishing creation. Nevertheless, this does not negate the historicity of the passage.
Except that each of the symbolic meanings I took from the Lord's supper are meanings drawn out in scripture.
Fair enough that we don't know the details of the process, but I am more apt to believe that God did have more of a personal connection in creating us. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that he molded the dust with his fingers (since Genesis doesn't give so much detail), I would say that he did indeed use the dust of the ground to form us right then and there.All living creatures came originally from the dust of the earth and we become dust again (or mud depending on the climate, when we die. And God was behind the whole long process. But that is not the same as God sticking his fingers into a mud pie and moulding it into figure he then put his lips to and blows into. That is metaphor.
I believe that Satan took the form of a serpent. I am weary to go into the details of such a thing, since no details are given, but it seems not entirely unreasonable to me to believe that he could take such a form. So if the serpent is not an allegory, there is no such difficulty.We are simply trying to see what sort of literature we are dealing with here and interpreting it accordingly. We find clues in the text itself, Genesis telling us Adam was God's name for the people he created not a single individual or the poetic framework of Gen 1, as well as in how the rest of the bible interprets the section. We have Moses telling us in a Creation Psalm that God's days are not to be taken literally. We learn throughout scripture that the snake was really Satan, not a reptile. If the snake was an allegory, then how did Eve have a chat with an allegory unless she was allegorical too?
I would agree with all of that, except I wouldn't say that it is merely metaphorical, but a metaphor based on truth. I also would qualify the statement that we are all in Adam because Adam is the human race in the sense that he fathered the human race as the first man.Or it could all be metaphorical because we are all mortal and 'made of dust', but we are also made by God. We are 'in Adam' because Adam is the human race.
Spontaneous generation as a scientific principle is bogus, but if you modify it to allow the generation of life from nothing, it then becomes an easily viable option for our all powerful God. I mean, if the plants didn't just pop out of the ground, where would they come from? Not a big concern for me, though, since I tend to stick to what is in the Scriptures (at least I hope I do).I should point out that in the early church, and before Pasteur, God commanding the earth to produce living creatures was seen as God giving the earth the ability to produce life by spontaneous generation.
Why would you assume it to be allegory? You know that modern psychologists often talk about the whole presentation of sin as damaging to the psyche, and many modern biologists claim that homosexuality is natural and inherent, and psychologists say that speaking against homosexuality can be harmful for an individual with homosexual tendencies. Are we to throw all of these verses into "allegory" because they don't fit modern science, psychology, philosophy, etc?
Modern archeology once insisted that certain parts of the Bible were simply wrong. Later, "more modern" archeology would reveal that the Bible was indeed accurate. I'm sure it would have been tempting to turn those parts of the Bible into an allegory to try to better fit with modern conceptions of archeology.
If we were to call in someone who sees the gospels in an allegorical fashion, I can assure you that you would hit some of the same arguments presented here. Essentially, there is no simple answer. However, my solution for this problem is to simply never turn narratives into allegories unless there is clear evidence to do so (such as when Jesus makes it clear he is telling us a parable). Jesus' story about the Tower of Siloam does not have anything of the aura of a parable, and there is no mention of it being so by anyone, so I assume it to be historical.
That is exactly how I treat the entirety of the Bible, sparing only clearly prophetical passages (I don't dare try to interpret prophecy before it is fulfilled; I don't think that's our responsibility, but that's another issue).
If the narratives in the Bible are simply turned into figurative stories that never happened, then they are essentially useless in the sense that they offer us no assurance that God intervenes in the lives of real people in real history. I compared that to other religions that have their own myths, but offer no hope because they are not concrete; I was arguing for the concrete nature of the Scriptures in that a real god really works in the lives of real people in real history.
What makes me different from Cardinal Bellarmine? I'm not Catholic
Sorry Shernren, but I'm gonna pull a Christ-technique here and refuse to answer until you answer a question of mine: How do YOU know? You "reference to the external world" method only works if it is an allegory that involves some observable natural element, which most don't.
For example, you say that we know that we don't literally chop off limbs because the Christian church has no such practice. Since I am not Catholic, an argument from "the Church doesn't do..." won't work for me. I could simply argue that the church is not fulfilling this element of the Scriptures (and contrary to what my Catholic brothers say, it is a very common thing for God's chosen to disobey and receive punishment; that includes the Church, too).
I believe Evolution is contrary to some core teachings of the faith, including the creation of mankind, the beginning of life, the origin and nature of sin, and so forth. Although I cannot form a good written argument of the position now, I believe that Evolution as God's tool of creation is an unreasonable and unacceptable concept to ascribe to a god with the nature of the one true God.
Genesis 1-3 is biased in that the focus is on God and his relationship with his people, not on the exact mechanisms by which God is accomplishing creation. Nevertheless, this does not negate the historicity of the passage.
This definition of "liberal Christian" is consistent with my biased presentation of it.
These variation on views can very easily allow a "liberal Christian" to have views similar to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, groups most of us readily classify as heretical.
but it is what I firmly believe is the motive behind what I am calling "liberal Christianity."
Many theologians exist who challenge the authority and authenticity of the Scriptures; this is what I would call "not believing the Scriptures."
Whoa, slow down there. When did I start talking about "non-conservative Christians?"
We mustn't be so cautiously logical that we attempt to explain away the mysteries of the gospel and of our Lord.
What Paul argues for, he argues for logically and reasonably.
The goal of Scripture interpretation is to discern the author's original intent to his original audience.
Because of this, they held some awkward beliefs for a while, and perhaps still do. These beliefs included the ability to cast out demons by blowing a trumpet, objects being possessed with evil spirits, if they are not convicted of sin then it is not a sin (whatever they do), etc.
Actually, as an English teacher, you are probably trained to understand a form of English as "correct" and a form of English as "incorrect."
I tend to favor the use of words for their colloquial meaning...
However, this is what we all do. We have to make a determination which sections of Scripture are historical and which are allegory.
If you are an unbeliever, or you are a "liberal Christian" who denies that miracles can or do happen,
However, for a ... Christian who knows that God is all powerful and works miracles in history, I will say that it is unreasonable to interpret Genesis as allegory.
This evidence is not contained in Scripture, but in the realm of what we call "science." I believe the theory of Macro Evolution, more than anything else, has encouraged the allegorical interpretation of Genesis.
You see, Paul can make the simile that marriage is like Christ and the church because marriage exists, and so does Christ, and so does the church. If marriage were itself a non-existent story that was created as allegory to teach a principle, using it as part of the simile would seem ridiculous.
If hands and feet didn't exist, but were an allegorical concept, it would seem silly to use such hyperbole.
I simply and strongly insist that Genesis is not allegory. I have provided numerous reasons. I don't think my audience here has read them and considered them unreasonable.
We must remember that the whole concept of the scientific model may itself have a flaw that we are unable yet to realize.
Although they did indeed develop some advanced concepts of math and science, they never abandoned their insistence on religion as a means of understanding the natural world.
Why, today, do we suddenly believe that religion is best for spiritual concerns, but "science" (in its broadest sense) is best for the natural "real" world? This dichotomy is unbiblical, that we should pit the natural against the supernatural, not realizing that it is ALL in a sense supernatural. Who created this universe?
Just because [God] does it through means that we can observe does not make it any less the work of our God's hands.
Neither. They are literary. That is, within the framework of the narrative they are literal, but they cannot be removed from the framework of the narrative to take a place in history.Where they literal days or figurative?
You must also believe that he created the plants and animals in the order it says. Is it essentially important?
You must also believe that humans were the crowning final creation, and that one man was created from the dust of the ground.
However, if you take it as a "myth" that means that God just sort of generally created everything, but that life started with a primordial ooze ... well, that is just unreasonable a fit to this "myth" of Genesis 1-3.
Here's a question.If Scripture reinforces such symbolism, I support them all. However, if the symbolism is conjecture but not explicitly linked in the Scriptures, I am not so eager to emphasize it.
Why right then and there? I agree it speaks of intimate involvement in our creation. We see a similar connection in Ezekiel 16, God's relationship with Jerusalem, but God often works on much longer timescales than either of these stories suggest.Fair enough that we don't know the details of the process, but I am more apt to believe that God did have more of a personal connection in creating us. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that he molded the dust with his fingers (since Genesis doesn't give so much detail), I would say that he did indeed use the dust of the ground to form us right then and there.
There is no suggestion of Satan doing any such shapeshifting. In Genesis it wasn't an angel in the form of a snake, it was simply a snake, a beast of the field, albeit a talking snake who was the cleverest of all the beasts. It punishment was punishment suited to a reptile, it would slither on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life. In the end the snake will bite the heel of the promised redeemer and have its head crushed.I believe that Satan took the form of a serpent. I am weary to go into the details of such a thing, since no details are given, but it seems not entirely unreasonable to me to believe that he could take such a form. So if the serpent is not an allegory, there is no such difficulty.
Is the metaphor of Jesus being the good shepherd based on a summer job he had as a child minding sheep? Or do metaphors stand on their own because there are parallels between the image and the thing described?I would agree with all of that, except I wouldn't say that it is merely metaphorical, but a metaphor based on truth. I also would qualify the statement that we are all in Adam because Adam is the human race in the sense that he fathered the human race as the first man.
Scripture doesn't tell us how God did it either.Spontaneous generation as a scientific principle is bogus, but if you modify it to allow the generation of life from nothing, it then becomes an easily viable option for our all powerful God. I mean, if the plants didn't just pop out of the ground, where would they come from? Not a big concern for me, though, since I tend to stick to what is in the Scriptures (at least I hope I do).
Yet in spite of thousands of years between them and a very different cultural setting, the similarities between Revelation and the first chapters of Genesis are striking.You also mentioned that Genesis is prophecy as well. I agree with you, but there are many different forms of prophecy. What I meant when I said "prophecy" was the typical definition that the average Christian will mean, which is, "Language, generally figurative, speaking of a future event." I classify most of Revelation as such. Although there are many wonderful jewels in that book, I am careful not to try to create a theology based on cryptic prophecies; prophecies have always held their full meaning after they've come true, not before. That's another issue, of course, and I am not dogmatic about it.
I think we all start off with our own preconceptions of the sort of people we are talking to. That is not a problem. The important thing is that we are willing to drop our mistaken preconceptions and begin to get to know the other person (to the extent that is possible over the internet). You have shown an open hearted willingness to do that that is heartwarmingThanks for the new thread. I'll definitely have a look.
I have to say that I believe what has been stated is probably pretty sufficient. I am getting the sense that we're repeating some issues and continually covering one issue in various ways; that is, the issue about what to take as allegory and to what extent. Although we won't agree, I respect your integrity in maintaining a solid position. I wanted to clarify an earlier statement that may be rude. I said that I don't believe it to be "reasonable" to see all of Genesis 1-3 as allegory. I do not mean to say that an individual who believes such is an "unreasonable person," but that I think that particular belief is not a good fit based on the evidence provided. In hindsight, I would not have used the word "unreasonable." My apologies if anyone was offended.
But then again, we all tend think that our position is the reasonable, and the other doesn't match the evidence. I think this is a good point at which to end the conversation (at least on my end). You're welcome to respond again, and I hope I covered the issues Shernren addressed in his final post.
Thanks for the great discussion! Best one I've had in OT for sure.
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.
Another problem with the six literal days interpretation is the avoidance of standard numbering system for counting consecutive days. Instead of 'the first day... the second day... the third day' we have 'one day... a second day... a third day'. This is much more vague. Add to that we have other days cropping up beside the six numbered days. There is a day and night mentioned before 'day one' in verse 5,
and the 'days seasons and years' being marked out in verse 14. Even if we take the numbered days literally we don't have a six day creation in Genesis 1.
I said that I don't believe it to be "reasonable" to see all of Genesis 1-3 as allegory.
Genesis absolutely does not contain contradictory creation narratives.
And, before I begin with anything, let me say that Genesis 5 contains no narrative of ANY sense whatsoever;
Genesis 1 and 2 have absolutely no contradictions whatsoever, and I am still clueless as to why people continually present them as so.
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."
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.
Besides, many have pointed out what are apparent contradictions in the Passion narrative (Christ's sentencing and crucifixion). Should we immediately just accept the criticism and therefore turn the whole Passion narrative into an allegory? Of course not! Instead, we (as a whole) pursued good hermeneutics and rules of interpretation and discovered that these were not contradictions at all;
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?
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?
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.
Was even Jesus himself fooled by Genesis 1-3, believing them to be literal when they were really allegory?
See Paul's treatment of Genesis as literal in the following verses:
Romans 5
1 Corinthians 15:22
1 Corinthians 15:45
1 Timothy 2:13-14
Note how Jude treats Adam as a literal, individual human in Jude 14.
Another powerful reason not to believe that Gen 1-3 is allegory is the following:
Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi [it goes on for some time...] (38) the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Jesus lineage, the lineage of the only begotten Son of God, is traced back to Adam.
However, we have Adam being directly the son of God.
So now we have a dilemma. TE presents a challenge: who was this first human man Adam? At what exact point does "humankind" begin and any other animal end?
Additionally, how is this moral responsibility supposed to play itself out in a world that is already fraught with death, perils, and suffering?
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?
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?
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.
I am in good company when I take Genesis 1-3 as literal;
It is still a yom that covers the entire period of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Verse 17 has Adam warned he would die in the day, beyom, he ate of the tree. He didn't, so either dying was not literal or day wasn't.Not a single "yom", but a 24 hour day. And that is because this is a separate creation story.
No there is not. Genesis 1:5 simply says that creation of light and separation of light from dark happened on the first day.
Check out the NASB, the RSV, WEB and the JPSAnd the translations of Genesis 1 I have seen do indeed say "first day", "second day", etc.
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?