A little thought experiment

[Vance]

Let’s do a little thought experiment.

Think about every essential truth contained in Genesis 1 and 2. The ones that have spiritual and theological implications. The ones that mean something for our salvation and our relationship with God. Just list them out in your head, or even write them down.

Now let’s say that you found out today, without the possibility of doubt, that Genesis 1 and 2 were not meant to be read as strict literal history. You find out that it is written in figurative, symbolic and typological language in which historical events (God created the universe, God created Man in His image, etc) are explained in a figurative vehicle which is not intended to tell those truths with strict historicity in all its details.

If you found that out, would you still accept the great and essential truths you first listed?

Would you say that those essential truths could not be true if the text of the two creation accounts were not literal history?

 

[JohnR7]

Would you say that those essential truths could not be true if the text of the two creation accounts were not literal history?

They are both true, OEC & YEC are both true, well not the world wide flood, at least not in the last 6000 years. But otherwise Gen 1 & 2 both have a literal meaning. The reason you miss it is because they have other meaning also.

One example of this is when Jesus was talking about the events that would take place at the end of this age. He was also talking about the events that were going to take place in Jerusalem in 70 ad. He talks about both at the same time, because one is a shadow and a type of the other.

You should know that Isreal was a type of the church today. Everything God did in Isreal on a smaller scale, He is doing world wide in the Church today on a large scale. That is why I do not understand why you do not get it, because you claim to be able to understand and properly interpret scripture.

Shadows and types is pretty basic stuff, there is nothing advanced about it.

 

[Vance]

But, John, you did not perform the experiment, but simply argued against figurative reading. Now, go back and try again. ;0)

 

[Remus]

Now let’s say that you found out today, without the possibility of doubt, that Genesis 1 and 2 were not meant to be read as strict literal history.

Can I play along even if I don't believe that Genesis 1-2 are "strict literal history"?

two creation accounts

One cretaion account. I love how you try to slip these things in.

 

[Vance]

Can I play along even if I don't believe that Genesis 1-2 are "strict literal history"?

Sure! If you discovered what was described, would you have any problems with the essential truths?

One cretaion account. I love how you try to slip these things in.

Ah, but there ARE two accounts, whether you read them literally or figuratively. One starts and ends, the other then starts and ends. And, we all agree that, when read properly, they do NOT contradict each other. The question is whether that non-contradiction is based on a series of assumptions and leaps (whether logical or not) in order to make them fit literally, or simply due to the fact that they are not meant to be read as being literal in their chronology and details.

But let's not get side-tracked on to that! What about the thought experiment?

 

[California Tim]

Can you demonstrate what part of the Genesis account interpretation is listed as a condition of salvation? When you do, I'll answer more specifically.

 

[Remus]

Sure! If you discovered what was described, would you have any problems with the essential truths?

no

 

[Vance]

Can you demonstrate what part of the Genesis account interpretation is listed as a condition of salvation? When you do, I'll answer more specifically.

Not just salvation but which provide essential truths about our relationship with God. I think these include:

God made the universe
God is in charge of all of it
God created with a purpose and a plan
God's Creation is "good"
God made Man in His image (did something special with Man distinct from the rest of Creation
God wants to have communion with Man
Man is sinful and has "fallen short of the Glory"
Man has, as a result of this selfish nature, which chooses our own way, has lost that communion with God (spiritual death)
God has given Man dominion (responsibility?) over the earth and its creatures
God made woman as a helpmate for man
Satan can tempt us
Man can tempt each other
Man tries to avoid responsibility for his own selfish and sinful acts
Man will have to suffer and strive as a result of the separation from God

These off the top of my head, but you see the types of truths I am talking about. Some of these directly impact our need for salvation, others inform us about the nature of God, and of our relationship with Him, others inform us about ourselves.

So, the question is whether you would still believe these truths entirely if you found out that they had been conveyed to you in the figurative, non-literal manner I described in the OP.

 

[California Tim]

Which of those "truths" mentioned are exclusive to either interpretation?

 

[Vance]

Which of those "truths" mentioned are exclusive to either interpretation?

None, in my view. That's the point.

 

[California Tim]

None, in my view. That's the point.

Then it's a non-issue.

 

[Vance]

Then it's a non-issue.

No, it is a very important issue! If these basic truths are just as supportable and believable with EITHER interpretation, then YEC's can't say that they MUST follow the literal view or these truths are in question. They can't argue the slippery slope, because it is shown that all the same important truths are still believed. YEC's can't say, well, if you read it that way, you can't really believe X or Y. They are all still true, the vehicle would not change that!

Now, a YEC may still feel a literal reading is best, but all these issues go away. And, to the extent that many cling to a literal reading in order to avoid those types of dangers, then they can see that those dangers are non-existent. You don't stop believing in ANYTHING important just because you don't believe in the historicity of every detail.

 

[Remus]

Then it's a non-issue.

I'll give you 200 blessings if you respond with "IS NOT!!"

 

[Vance]

Then it's a non-issue.

IS NOT!

Hey, but that is a double negative, can get to be confusing!

Keep your blessings, though, since I don't even know what I should be doing with the ones I have!

 

[Remus]

As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

 

[Vance]

Oh, believe me, you don't need to tell anyone who has dealt with YEC's for so many years what a strawman is!

 

[California Tim]

No, it is a very important issue! If these basic truths are just as supportable and believable with EITHER interpretation, then YEC's can't say that they MUST follow the literal view or these truths are in question. They can't argue the slippery slope, because it is shown that all the same important truths are still believed. YEC's can't say, well, if you read it that way, you can't really believe X or Y. They are all still true, the vehicle would not change that!

OK. Let me see if I can succinctly wrap up my opinion on the matter.

1. We have been told all we need to know in order to be saved.
2. Among those requisites, I have yet to find a reference to the creation account.
3. If neither Christ, nor any of the disciples or the apostles saw fit to include a particular confession of the creation account as a requirement for salvation, then I fail to see the logic behind, nor the authority given to man to include it now as a litmus test of salvation.​

That having been said, a foundational necessity prior to accepting what the Bible says about Christ would have to be a willingness to accept it as inspired by God and inerrant in its message. Ultimately it must hold that when the Bible can be conclusively shown to be properly interpreted to convey a message that is irreconcilable with a world-view, whether it be scientific, philosophical, political, socio-economic or otherwise, the Bible must prevail - or else all other arguments presented within must be relativistic in nature. Once that slope is approached, it may indeed become a "slippery slope" leading to the denial of all scripture which cannot be verified via naturalistic or humanistic methodology. Unless the Bible represents "objective truth", independent of outside correlation, and outside the realm of doubt, then all it teaches is in vain - including, potentially the message of salvation through Christ , since virtually any point can be debated from a world-view to discredit its validity. Feel free to disagree.

 

[Remus]

Did you recognize it before or after you used it?

*edit: This was to Vance. I should have quoted

 

[Vance]

OK. Let me see if I can succinctly wrap up my opinion on the matter.

1. We have been told all we need to know in order to be saved.
2. Among those requisites, I have yet to find a reference to the creation account.
3. If neither Christ, nor any of the disciples or the apostles saw fit to include a particular confession of the creation account as a requirement for salvation, then I fail to see the logic behind, nor the authority given to man to include it now as a litmus test of salvation.​

Agreed.
​

That having been said, a foundational necessity prior to accepting what the Bible says about Christ would have to be a willingness to accept it as inspired by God and inerrant in its message.

Agreed, IN IT'S MESSAGE.

Ultimately it must hold that when the Bible can be conclusively shown to be properly interpreted to convey a message that is irreconcilable with a world-view, whether it be scientific, philosophical, political, socio-economic or otherwise, the Bible must prevail - or else all other arguments presented within must be relativistic in nature.

Agreed, when any true message contained in Scripture is irreconcilable with any world-view then the Biblical Message must prevail. We agree entirely so far.

Once that slope is approached, it may indeed become a "slippery slope" leading to the denial of all scripture which cannot be verified via naturalistic or humanistic methodology.

Agreed. Good thing none of us here have ever denied any Scripture. Using what we see gather from God's Creation as one factor in determining what Scripture is telling us, absolutely, but never rejecting Scripture.

Unless the Bible represents "objective truth", independent of outside correlation, and outside the realm of doubt, then all it teaches is in vain - including, potentially the message of salvation through Christ , since virtually any point can be debated from a world-view to discredit its validity. Feel free to disagree.

Agreed, the Bible does represent "objective truth". That is not in dispute. Those objective truths are told in the inerrant messages you mentioned earlier. Those messages are held outside the realm of doubt and can be trusted wholly and completely. What can get to be a problem is when we insist that the literary vehicle within which those truths are told must be literal history in every detail.

But, really did you answer the question? Would you still believe those truths if you discovered what I describe in the OP?

 

[Vance]

Did you recognize it before or after you used it?

*edit: This was to Vance. I should have quoted

I am not sure where such a strawman lies. I am not saying that all YEC's would argue as I describe, but many do. As I said, the realization of the point I am making would take away those particular arguments, not destroy YEC'ism. So, I am not creating a straw-man version of YEC'ism, just validly addressing those particular "slippery slope" arguments that some YEC's are fond of.