Biblical literalism and the story of creation

Alunyel · Jul 13, 2009

AV1611VET said:
It is, huh?

Let me ask you this:

If anyone claims the tiles were laid in alphabetical order, they would be wrong, wouldn't they?

[Please answer this.]

No.

The way the tiles were laid out, read from left to right, is in alphabetical order. Even if the order in which they were placed down isn't.

You clearly didn't even read the rest of my post.

I'll try explaining again.

You said that if you put the vowels down first, it would still look as if you put them down a-z, claiming that the only way to know that you didn't was if you wrote that the vowels were first down. That's plausible, because there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that you put them down in any order, a-z or the vowels first. Anyone who said you put them down a-z would just be guessing, they'd have no real way to know how you put them down, aside from what you wrote.

But saying that's what God did in Genesis is like having a video of you putting the tiles down a-z, and then writing that you put the vowels down first. Your written testimony may say you put the vowels down first, but the physical evidence quite clearly says otherwise.

We have solid evidence of how stars and planets were formed. The difference being, God's written testimony could just as easily be a fabrication, whereas the evidence doesn't lie.

Bombila · Jul 13, 2009

AV1611VET said:
LOL --- I knew that was coming.

Still though, it doesn't pay homage to the passage (Job 38:7), where these "stars" are applauding the creation of the earth.This particular passage is what is called Complimentary Hebrew Poetry.

In CHP, a statement is made, then reiterated using different words; thus, in effect, serving as a built-in dictionary at times.

Notice in this case: morning stars = sons of God (a metaphor for angels).

I am much more literal-minded than thou, AV.

And I'll bet you meant complementary.

AV1611VET · Jul 13, 2009

Bombila said:
I am much more literal-minded than thou, AV.

And I'll bet you meant complementary.

Ouch!

Neither actually --- I just looked it up.

The word I'm looking for is "completive".

From Explore the Book, by J. Sidlow Baxter:

Now in Hebrew poetry there is neither the sound parallelism of rhyme nor the time parallelism of rhythm, but there is parallelism of ideas. This parallelism of ideas is in three kinds - completive, contrastive, and constructive.

By COMPLETIVE parallels we mean those in which the second member of the parallel concurs with the first, and develops it to an intended further point.

--- Sorry for the misnomer.

Assyrian · Jul 13, 2009

juvenissun said:
Guess not. But it is not metaphoric either. It only has ONE interpretation. It is an one-to-one type of correspondence.

But not with literal astronomical bodies, which makes 'morning stars' a metaphor.

Assyrian · Jul 13, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Either that, or the 'morning stars' are the angels.

I thought you wouldn't take it literally. Tell me, what do you think the angels were named after if stars and planets hadn't been created yet? Or is this supposed to be an anachronism?

Stars sing?

Whatever happened to "GOD DID IT --- CASE CLOSED"?

AV1611VET said:
theFijian said:

So out goes that literal interpretation. Cheers!

Click to expand...

Ya --- we happen to call that section of the Scriptures 'poetry'.

It is odd. It was only a few days ago in this very thread you were quoting the same chapter in Job to support literal interpretation.

AV1611VET said:
Jester4kicks said:

What is the basis (or reasoning) behind interpretting the bible, especially the story of creation, in a literal fashion?

Click to expand...

Several reasons come to mind...
4. God places a high emphasis on knowing His creation. As [the late] Henry Morris points out in his Defender's Study Bible, if you study the questions He asked Job, every question has to deal with His creation. Most people think God was chiding Job for not understanding why God was allowing him to suffer; but that's not the case. God was chiding Job for not understanding that He was instrumental in creating everything.

[FONT=&quot]Anyway, if it is alright to take morning stars figuratively in Job because it is poetry, does that mean if the passage is not poetry then the morning star must be literal? 2Pet 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

[/FONT]

Nathan Poe · Jul 13, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Yes, and who was the most famous person (in my opinion) to come from New Jersey, Nathan?

Do you remember?

Not that I'm in the habit of rememebering your opinions, but your belief that Noah came from New Jersey was so asinine as to be particularly memorable.

Nathan Poe · Jul 13, 2009

AV1611VET said:
LOL --- I knew that was coming.

Still though, it doesn't pay homage to the passage (Job 38:7), where these "stars" are applauding the creation of the earth.This particular passage is what is called Complimentary Hebrew Poetry.

Complementary poerty, AV [/English teacher]

In CHP, a statement is made, then reiterated using different words; thus, in effect, serving as a built-in dictionary at times.

Only for those people who look to poetry as a dictionary. Others see it as extending the metaphor.

Notice in this case: morning stars = sons of God (a metaphor for angels).

if one stopped looking line-by-line, and saw the poetic imagery on a larger scale, one could see entire chapters, even entire books, of the OT (and I won't rule out the NT) as CHP.

Jester4kicks · Jul 13, 2009

AV1611VET said:
God says ---An allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 allows for almost any heresy to apply: evolution, panspermia, Big Bang, alien experiment, oscillating universe, and more.

But a literal interpretation forces even those hostile to the Bible to admit that It says God did it.

1) I don't see anywhere in that quote where the reader is directed to interpret Genesis in a literal fashion.

2) The things you declare to be heresy only qualify as heresy IF a literal interpretation of the bible is appropriate. You have not shown anything that would lead someone to believe that such an interpretation is appropriate, let alone required.

3) "Hostile" toward the bible or not, I don't know anyone who wouldn't say "yes, the bible says 'god did it'" when referring to the story of creation. I'm not sure what your point was there.

Hespera · Jul 13, 2009

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

God says ---An allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 allows for almost any heresy to apply: evolution, panspermia, Big Bang, alien experiment, oscillating universe, and more.

But a literal interpretation forces even those hostile to the Bible to admit that It says God did it.QIOTE////////////////////////////

Hespera sez...

I'm not really aware of anyone who is "hostile" to the bible, other than certain middle eastern countries where they will arrest you for having one, i hear.

The choice of the word "admit" seems an odd one. Whats to deny in the obvious? May as well be saying someone will "admit" that the dictionary has words in it.

Its pretty obvious what the bible says in this regard. We just wonl agree that it is accurate, any more than the figuring of Pi is accurate, biblically speaking. Less, actually; the Pi figures would at least be in the ball park.

Oh.... god REALLY says that 'evolution is heresy"? Quote please.

AV1611VET · Jul 13, 2009

Hespera said:
I'm not really aware of anyone who is "hostile" to the bible...

I don't mean 'hostile' in the sense of 'hostile' --- I mean 'hostile' in the sense of 'hostile'.

Meaning there are only two groups: those friendly to, and those hostile to.

Remember the old workstations?

They used to be either 'user friendly' or 'user hostile', depending on who could use them.

User friendly meant anyone could just sit down and start using their applications --- user hostile meant you had to log into them first, before you could access their menus.

Hespera · Jul 13, 2009

Ok.......i have no idea what you are talking about, workstation or the difference between hostile and hostile. Not my cultural heritage, or something.

So does it REALLY say those things you listed are heresy? Relevant quote?

atomweaver · Jul 14, 2009

Hespera said:
Ok.......i have no idea what you are talking about, workstation or the difference between hostile and hostile. Not my cultural heritage, or something.

Its a generation gap thing, Hespera... but one that AVVET (deliberately?) makes unnecessarily dense, in an attempt to rile people.

Old dumb workstations hooked up to a mainframe computer back in AVVET's heyday were either "user-friendly" or "user hostile", as he says.
Wading deeper into the dense analogy, AVVET seems to mean that those "hostile to the Bible" are like those trying to use a program (The Bible) for which they don't have a login/password (which would be a Literal, Independant Fundamentalist exegesis in the analogy, I suppose...)

Yes I agree, it is idiotic, isn't it..?

AV1611VET · Jul 14, 2009

atomweaver said:
Wading deeper into the dense analogy, AVVET seems to mean that those "hostile to the Bible" are like those trying to use a program (The Bible) for which they don't have a login/password (which would be a Literal, Independant Fundamentalist exegesis in the analogy, I suppose...)

That 'login/password' would be the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:14 said:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Without Him, the Bible makes no sense, and would indeed appear 'idiotic' to some.

Hespera · Jul 14, 2009

atomweaver said:
Its a generation gap thing, Hespera... but one that AVVET (deliberately?) makes unnecessarily dense, in an attempt to rile people.

Old dumb workstations hooked up to a mainframe computer back in AVVET's heyday were either "user-friendly" or "user hostile", as he says.
Wading deeper into the dense analogy, AVVET seems to mean that those "hostile to the Bible" are like those trying to use a program (The Bible) for which they don't have a login/password (which would be a Literal, Independant Fundamentalist exegesis in the analogy, I suppose...)

Yes I agree, it is idiotic, isn't it..?

Ok.............sure seems like easier to just say what you mean directly.

Reminds me, my dad telling me about cold war days and Nikita K. That among other things the Russian guy thought he was an art critic.

Called Louis Armstrong a "barbarian" and railed against "obscurantism"
in Russian poetry. (probably meant he just couldnt figure it out so that indicated obscurantism)

That was the only time I have ever heard anyone say that word.
But I finally found a use for it!

atomweaver · Jul 14, 2009

Hespera said:
Ok.............sure seems like easier to just say what you mean directly.

Well, if he did that, then he wouldn't present himself with a chance at goading a few more atheists by calling them 'hostile to the Bible', and leaving off what he means by that.

What you have to realize about AVVET, is that a great weakness of his is his desire to indulge in the sin of variance; the public disagreement over Biblical matters with fellow Christians.

I've become increasingly convinced that all these Crevo posts of his are mostly an attempt to ameliorate that desire, by using atheists as "safe surrogates" to argue his preferred exegesis with. Pair that with some serious net addiction and/or OCD, and you can start to sympathize with what drives the man...

Hespera · Jul 14, 2009

atomweaver said:
Well, if he did that, then he wouldn't present himself with a chance at goading a few more atheists by calling them 'hostile to the Bible', and leaving off what he means by that.

What you have to realize about AVVET, is that a great weakness of his is his desire to indulge in the sin of variance; the public disagreement over Biblical matters with fellow Christians.

I've become increasingly convinced that all these Crevo posts of his are mostly an attempt to ameliorate that desire, by using atheists as "safe surrogates" to argue his preferred exegesis with. Pair that with some serious net addiction and/or OCD, and you can start to sympathize with what drives the man...

Oh, i like AV even tho we will never get along. Anyhow, i guess I have my own case of something probably worse.

Nathan Poe · Jul 21, 2009

atomweaver said:
Its a generation gap thing, Hespera... but one that AVVET (deliberately?) makes unnecessarily dense, in an attempt to rile people.

Old dumb workstations hooked up to a mainframe computer back in AVVET's heyday were either "user-friendly" or "user hostile", as he says.
Wading deeper into the dense analogy, AVVET seems to mean that those "hostile to the Bible" are like those trying to use a program (The Bible) for which they don't have a login/password (which would be a Literal, Independant Fundamentalist exegesis in the analogy, I suppose...)

Yes I agree, it is idiotic, isn't it..?

Appropriate that one would use an outdated analogy to defend outdated thinking.

Biblical literalism and the story of creation

Alunyel

Guest

Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Warning - The following may cause you to think

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency