A few thoughts on literalism

[Vance]

1. One thing to keep in mind about literal interpretation of Scripture: the debate over literalness began LONG before the issue of origins. It began very early in the history of the Church, and goes on in nearly every area of theology to this day. The concept of non-literal reading of some Scripture is not something invented by those who want to accept evolution or an old earth.

2. EVERY Christian reads many portions of the Scripture non-literally, even those who describe themselves as fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. So, it is not a matter of *whether* Scripture can be read non-literally, it is *which* Scripture can be read non-literally.

3. Ancient cultures did not make the same distinction regarding literal/non-literal that we do today. They constantly mixed up their history and allegory, legend and truth. For them, it was all the same in many ways. Whether something was historically accurate, or simply a powerful way of conveying a Truth made no difference to early cultures whatsoever. In Celtic cultures, for example, they could give you a very precise genealogy of their line right back to the legendary, supernatural Celtic heroes. They really didn’t care whether it was all historically accurate or not (or *when* it became historically accurate) since the legend was as real and important in their mind as true history. It is difficult for us in modern times to get "our head around" this mindset, but it is very true. And God knew how these cultures thought, of course, and how effective even an allegorical tale would be in conveying His message, and would not hesitate to write it as if it was "true history" since it would be not be deceiving anyone. I think He would expect us today to recognize this phenomenon and not be deceived either. This does not mean that every bit of history is allegorical, not by a long shot. But it is not impossible for Scripture which would seem, to our modern eyes, to be true history, to actually be a more complex mix of history, poetry, allegory, etc. All Truth, of course.

 

[Ark Guy]

We also know that it is scientifically impossible for a dead guy to get get up and walk around on day 3.

As you clearly said vance...God knows how these cultures thought, of course, and how effective even an allegorical tale would be in conveying His message, and would not hesitate to write it as if it was "true history" since it would be not be deceiving anyone. I think He would expect us today to recognize this phenomenon and not be deceived either.

The same would then be true for the phenomenon of the resurrection. Your logic above leaves the door wide open for another biblical allegorical story....That is considering that we all know that the medical scientist have confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you're dead...especially for 3 day...YOU STAY DEAD...period.

Just as you said above vance, applying vance logic, us smart sophisticated people in 2003 would easily realize that the resurrection wast just an allegorical story, and understand that God was not deceived us.

So lets filter both events through science.
Your science says....claims...that the creation as per scripture is scientifically impossible. AND, your science also says that the resurrection was also scientifically impossible.

Your claim is that you have empirical data that shows creation/flood as per the bible didn't happen....and we also have empirical data that clearly shows that resurrection on day 3 is also impossible.

But somehow you and the other theo-evos have the ability to differentiate these biblical stories and divide the fact from fiction.....please tell us your secret.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Do we have to put up with this canard again?

If the creation happened as described by a literal reading of Genesis 1, and if a flood occurred as described by a literal reading of the flood story, it would leave particular forms of evidence.

Those forms of evidence are lacking.

This is no so of the resurrection of Our Lord. Indeed, the evidence it would leave - a church convinced He was alive - is to be found.

The two are not comparable.

 

[Vance]

Yes, no matter how often we explain in excruciating detail why the two are entirely different situations, they just keep repeating the same strawman. They don't even bother to respond to our explanation, they just repeat the same strawman verbatim.

And I should point out that even among those Christians who are not YEC's, which range everywhere from OEC to extreme TE's, there is a wide variety of degree to which the Bible is read literally. I am more inclined to read Scriptures literally than Karl or Lucaspa, for example. Still, even YEC's read Scripture non-literally all the time when it does not bump up against a bugaboo they have.

Bottom line, God can and does do miracles, which means God stepping outside the boundaries of the natural laws He established. The fact that, IN THE NATURAL RULES, a man can not raise from the dead does not mean God can not do it anyway. And Him doing it does not in any way mean that the natural law is no longer in effect and can not be relied upon.

So, a belief that, in a particular instance, God did not step outside the natural laws He established to accomplish His plan does not equate to a belief that He NEVER does so. If the evidence God left behind clarifies that He used a particular natural means, then we should accept that. If He does something that could ONLY be done by supernatural means (raising the dead), then we know that it was supernatural.

 

[Jase]

Do we have to put up with this canard again?

If the creation happened as described by a literal reading of Genesis 1, and if a flood occurred as described by a literal reading of the flood story, it would leave particular forms of evidence.

Those forms of evidence are lacking.

This is no so of the resurrection of Our Lord. Indeed, the evidence it would leave - a church convinced He was alive - is to be found.

The two are not comparable.

They are lacking depending on who is interpreting the evidence. No one has a clue what actual evidence would result from a world wide flood with continental tectonics the world has never imagined. The only reason you don't see evidence for the flood is because it doesn't fit your presumptions. There is ample evidence for the flood, it just depends on who is interpreting it.

And even if there was no evidence, that doesn't mean we won't find any in the future. If we automatically assumed everything was false that couldn't be proven immediately, we wouldn't even know what a human is. Guess we should stop seeking a cure for AIDS or Cancer, since there is no evidence that they can be cured completely. Guess we should forget life on other planets since there is no evidence any intelligent life actually exists.

 

[Jase]

Do we have to put up with this canard again?

If the creation happened as described by a literal reading of Genesis 1, and if a flood occurred as described by a literal reading of the flood story, it would leave particular forms of evidence.

Those forms of evidence are lacking.

This is no so of the resurrection of Our Lord. Indeed, the evidence it would leave - a church convinced He was alive - is to be found.

The two are not comparable.

Even Jesus and His apostles refer to Genesis, Adam and Eve, and the flood. Guess Our Lord and His disciples were lying then huh?

 

[Vance]

Even Jesus and His apostles refer to Genesis, Adam and Eve, and the flood. Guess Our Lord and His disciples were lying then huh?

Of course not, that is just silly. Genesis is true, it contains the words and message of God Almighty, so why wouldn't they refer to it? And why wouldn't they believe it? This has nothing to do with whether it is literal or not, or to which degree it is literal. As I described above, a person at Jesus' time would discuss Adam and Eve EXACTLY as He did even if He KNEW it was not literal, or if not all of it was literal. His disciples as well. That was the nature of the culture in ancient times.

As for the flood, it is not just that we have no evidence right now of a world-wide flood, it is that we have incredibly massive amounts of evidence that there was no flood. In fact, everything about the earth the way it is right now argues against a worldwide flood around 2000 to 3000. Not to mention the historical records of cultures around at the proposed time of the flood.

It is NOT a situation in which "there is evidence on both sides, it is just where you are coming from". Remember, it was Christian geologists back in the 1800's who first concluded that a worldwide flood could not have happened. They were definitely not predisposed against a flood. What you should do is head over to the Science forum and read any of the threads on the flood and you will see the vast evidence against a flood.

In fact, the evidence against a flood and against a young earth is SO conclusive that it has caused a number of YEC organizations to resort to the following argument:

"OK, yes, the earth does indeed look very old and as if there was no flood, but that is just because God made it look that way."

Most don't really explain, though, why God would do this, but I am not sure I would rely so heavily on a theory which makes God such a deceiver.

 

[ThePhoenix]

The same would then be true for the phenomenon of the resurrection. Your logic above leaves the door wide open for another biblical allegorical story....That is considering that we all know that the medical scientist have confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you're dead...especially for 3 day...YOU STAY DEAD...period.

What? We've found 5000 year old grain from Egypt that seeded. There's no physical law that suggests that the process of death could not be reversed. OUR EXPERIENCE IS that dead people do not get up (except when they're revived...) which doesn't mean that dead people could not get up (just because a bullet usually comes out of the gun when you pull the trigger doesn't mean it doesn't jam occasionally) 3 days later, especially when God intervenes.

So on one hand we have every physical science agreeing that the earth is old by all evidence, and biology agreeing that dead people can come back to life (granted, not people who have been dead for three days, but I'd assume God has better "technology" then us). Sounds like God thought this out well.

 

[wblastyn]

We also know that it is scientifically impossible for a dead guy to get get up and walk around on day 3.

:head bashing against wall smilie:

Why do you continue to use this insane troll logic when it has been pointed out to you that it is in fact INSANE!

The same would then be true for the phenomenon of the resurrection. Your logic above leaves the door wide open for another biblical allegorical story....That is considering that we all know that the medical scientist have confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you're dead...especially for 3 day...YOU STAY DEAD...period.

THE RESURRECTION WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A MIRACLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT!!!!

Just as you said above vance, applying vance logic, us smart sophisticated people in 2003 would easily realize that the resurrection wast just an allegorical story, and understand that God was not deceived us.

"us smart sophisticated" ROFL

So lets filter both events through science.
Your science says....claims...that the creation as per scripture is scientifically impossible. AND, your science also says that the resurrection was also scientifically impossible.

No, science says "based on the evidence life was not zapped into existance magically by God over a 6 day period 6000 years ago".

IT DOES NOT SAY "IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO CREATE IN SUCH A WAY" SINCE SCIENCE CANNOT COMMENT ON GOD.

Your claim is that you have empirical data that shows creation/flood as per the bible didn't happen....and we also have empirical data that clearly shows that resurrection on day 3 is also impossible.

But somehow you and the other theo-evos have the ability to differentiate these biblical stories and divide the fact from fiction.....please tell us your secret.

There is something severly lacking in you.

 

[Buck72]

As I described above, a person at Jesus' time would discuss Adam and Eve EXACTLY as He did even if He KNEW it was not literal, or if not all of it was literal. His disciples as well. That was the nature of the culture in ancient times.

The nature of the culture was certainly not to lie. God is not helpless in the dissemination of His word. He's not a frusterated old man looking for where He left his newspaper and why those "kids" can't seem to figure it out.

God is in complete and total control of everyone and everything. He is neither subject to nor dependent upon anyone or anything. His word stands without need of our approval or popular science to "validate" it.

As for the flood, it is not just that we have no evidence right now of a world-wide flood, it is that we have incredibly massive amounts of evidence that there was no flood. In fact, everything about the earth the way it is right now argues against a worldwide flood around 2000 to 3000. Not to mention the historical records of cultures around at the proposed time of the flood.

It is NOT a situation in which "there is evidence on both sides, it is just where you are coming from". Remember, it was Christian geologists back in the 1800's who first concluded that a worldwide flood could not have happened. They were definitely not predisposed against a flood. What you should do is head over to the Science forum and read any of the threads on the flood and you will see the vast evidence against a flood.

Everest is the tallest mountain on the planet, yet it has sea fossils in the top 3,000 feet. God tells us in Genesis that the waters covered the tops of the mountains by 15 cubits; the ark was 30 cubits high (ground clearance?). Now whether Everest stood pre-diluvean as it stands today, I do not know. But there are sea fossils at 29,000 feet and a MESS of sedimentary rock all over the planet with fossil 'graveyards', fossil trees penetrating vertically through multiple layers of strata (each dated by some lengthy code of measurement indicating millions of years, etc). The mid-atlantic ridge could have been very well the source of the "great deeps were broken up" in the Flood account; erosion rates, salinity, the oldest tree is less than 4,000 years old, the oldest reef (Great Barrier) is less than 4,000 years old...

THE MISSING EVIDENCE IS THE FRONTAL LOBES OF EVOLUTIONISTS THAT WILL NOT RELEASE THEIR MYOPIC BIAS TO SEE A COUNTERPOINT.

Nothwithstanding the BIBLE - explicitly details the Flood.

Why? What benefit would God have in obfuscating the truth?

1Co 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Oh there it is - He is not a God of confusion. Maybe we are the confused ones.

Which is more confusing:

1. Plain text

2. Semi-literal contextual anaolgy drawn from conclusion based upon presupposition in a theoretical plausible realm of perhaps one of a billions possibilities none of which serve any purpose but to advance hypthetical conjecture that the literalistic interpretations require greater interpretations otherwise the subject could possibly find themself within erroneaous obfuscation and therefore 'false' doctrines.

In fact, the evidence against a flood and against a young earth is SO conclusive that it has caused a number of YEC organizations to resort to the following argument:

"OK, yes, the earth does indeed look very old and as if there was no flood, but that is just because God made it look that way."

Most don't really explain, though, why God would do this, but I am not sure I would rely so heavily on a theory which makes God such a deceiver.

Okay, under the title "YEC" - that granted by my holding to the word and open-eyed science:

We do not have to explain why God would deceive. Evos need to explain why THEY would deceive. We agree there is no compatibility of these two options, someone is plain wrong.

I'm going to stick to the Word of God and (if - hypothetical) He asks: "Why did you reject evolution?" I will answer: "It contradicted Your word." He may ask an evolutionist: "Why did you reject My word?" The evolutionist may answer: "It contradicted the evolution."

Who will be closer to the truth?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Lets make it very clear.

If the correct interpretation of Genesis is literal, then Genesis is wrong.

Period.

Get over it. The world was not made in six days. There was no world-wide flood. Sooner or later this reality is going to hit you, and if you've tied your faith to it you are going to be competely shafted.

 

[wblastyn]

I'm going to stick to the Word of God and (if - hypothetical) He asks: "Why did you reject evolution?" I will answer: "It contradicted Your word." He may ask an evolutionist: "Why did you reject My word?" The evolutionist may answer: "It contradicted the evolution."

Who will be closer to the truth?

Try "Why did you reject my Creation?" you will say "it contradicted my interpretation of your word".

"Why did you reject literal genesis" I will say "Creation itself declares that it cannot be literal".

 

[Vance]

Buck said:

The nature of the culture was certainly not to lie. God is not helpless in the dissemination of His word. He's not a frusterated old man looking for where He left his newspaper and why those "kids" can't seem to figure it out.

Of course, God does not lie. You continue to equate the use of symbolic, poetic or even allegorical language to describe events with "lying". This is where you are building an improper barrier to understanding.

God is in complete and total control of everyone and everything. He is neither subject to nor dependent upon anyone or anything. His word stands without need of our approval or popular science to "validate" it.

Of course not, because even as presentations using symbolic language, or even allegory, the presentation is WHOLLY TRUE and complete within itself. It conveys the exact message God intended, a true message. All science can do is come along and, for the sake of our own curiosity and inquisitive nature, tell us how it very likely happened in a literal sense. This does NOTHING whatsoever to detract from the validity of God’s Word.

Everest is the tallest mountain on the planet, yet it has sea fossils in the top 3,000 feet. . . .

OK, you need to do some research on this, since this is one of the most easily cleared up of the YEC misconceptions. Quickly, the fossils are not lying around on top of the mountain (they are embedded deep within the rock, which, in places has eroded away to expose them), and are not found on every mountain, both of which you would expect if they were there as the result of a worldwide flood. In fact, the absence of such fossils consistently over all mountains is a proof against the world-wide nature of the flood. The fossils are there simply because the rock which now makes up those mountains was at one point underwater. In fact, geologists can accurately predict *which* mountains will have fossils in their rock since they know which were one time underwater. Believe me, this is a MAJOR mis-statement by the Creation Science groups.

THE MISSING EVIDENCE IS THE FRONTAL LOBES OF EVOLUTIONISTS THAT WILL NOT RELEASE THEIR MYOPIC BIAS TO SEE A COUNTERPOINT.

Now, now . . .

Nothwithstanding the BIBLE - explicitly details the Flood.

Why? What benefit would God have in obfuscating the truth?

Maybe because those specific details are true, but that the extent and nature of the overall flood was local and not global. Actually, to my reading, a local flood can be viewed even as a literal reading (see my post on the Scriptural analysis of the flood earlier).

1Co 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Oh there it is - He is not a God of confusion. Maybe we are the confused ones.

Agreed, the question is which group is confused? I say the group which clings to an improper reading of Scripture which conflicts entirely with the evidence of God’s Creation, causing more people to doubt the validity of the Scripture.

Which is more confusing:

1. Plain text

2. Semi-literal contextual anaolgy drawn from conclusion based upon presupposition in a theoretical plausible realm of perhaps one of a billions possibilities none of which serve any purpose but to advance hypthetical conjecture that the literalistic interpretations require greater interpretations otherwise the subject could possibly find themself within erroneaous obfuscation and therefore 'false' doctrines.

Neither, of course.

If any YEC read the entire Scripture with interpretations based on the "plain text", at least they would be consistent. But I have not met one who has to this day. Instead, they do exactly what every Christian does, they use their interpretive abilities to clarify what the "plain text" means. Even in Genesis 1, there is a LOT of analysis interpreting the "plain text" by YEC’s which end up in conclusions which are not the "plainest" reading by a long shot.

Okay, under the title "YEC" - that granted by my holding to the word and open-eyed science:

We do not have to explain why God would deceive. Evos need to explain why THEY would deceive. We agree there is no compatibility of these two options, someone is plain wrong.

Right, either the earth is 6,000 years old, or it is billions of years old. Either God used evolution as part of His creative process or He did not.

I'm going to stick to the Word of God and (if - hypothetical) He asks: "Why did you reject evolution?" I will answer: "It contradicted Your word."

Which I think is an incorrect statement, of course. I don’t think it contradicts His Word in the least.

He may ask an evolutionist: "Why did you reject My word?" The evolutionist may answer: "It contradicted the evolution."

Buck, this is the type of strawman that makes YEC’s look so bad. I do not reject God’s Word in the least, and you know that. This is really inappropriate.

Who will be closer to the truth?

Closer to the truth? I think this is more likely to be closer to the truth: God would ask the YEC "why did you stubbornly hold to your own erring interpretation of My Word even when the nature of My Creation was revealed to you? Don’t you realize how damaging that was to my Message?"