Can a story = truth?

[versastyle]

I'm asking about the creation story in Genesis. Do any YEC's believe that this could be story to describe real events?

For example. There may not have been a man truly named Adam. However there was a man who was given the human soul from God who was tempted to do something wrong. He then, in his new conscious, began to see the evilness of his ways.

How does the story above MEAN anything inherently different then the literal and historical creation story you hold to?

Why does a literal Adam mean more than "the first man to sin"?

 

[Delta Leader]

Hello versastyle,
The main problem that I see, is that the story of which you give also goes against the Scriptures. Even Jesus took Genesis, or the writings of Moses, as being literal. So to did many of the Apostles. Take Paul's letter to the Church of Corinth in 1 Corinthians 6:16 in which he makes a direct reference to Genesis (i.e. For it is said, "The two will become one flesh").

Here is another prime example of Jesus taking the Genesis account literally:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them made and female'", and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?"

It still takes authority away from God's Word. Added onto this, depending whether death and suffering were around before this man, would also further undermine the Scriptures. The literal Adam means more than the "first man to sin" because the Bible tells us that there was a man named Adam who was made in the Image of God. If we are to trust the Bible, then there can't be this nameless man, nor can there be any eons of years between the creation week because the Bible tells us that "for in six days God made the heavens and the Earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day".

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hello versastyle,
The main problem that I see, is that the story of which you give also goes against the Scriptures. Even Jesus took Genesis, or the writings of Moses, as being literal. So to did many of the Apostles. Take Paul's letter to the Church of Corinth in 1 Corinthians 6:16 in which he makes a direct reference to Genesis (i.e. For it is said, "The two will become one flesh").

Why does refering to the story equate to declaring it to be literal?

Here is another prime example of Jesus taking the Genesis account literally:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them made and female'", and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?"

Why does refering to the story equate to declaring it to be literal?

It still takes authority away from God's Word.

God's Word is Jesus, although no doubt you mean the Bible. But you're wrong; it's about genre, levels and kinds of truth, and pre-modern communication of tradition. Not about Biblical authority.

Added onto this, depending whether death and suffering were around before this man, would also further undermine the Scriptures. The literal Adam means more than the "first man to sin" because the Bible tells us that there was a man named Adam who was made in the Image of God.

Actually, since Adam means 'man', it is eminently plausible that he stands as a type for all mankind, n'est-ce pas?

If we are to trust the Bible, then there can't be this nameless man,

Why not? What if the Bible isn't trying to say "There was this guy called Adam, and he really literally existed, and....". After all, it doesn't actually say that, does it?

nor can there be any eons of years between the creation week because the Bible tells us that "for in six days God made the heavens and the Earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day".

And you know that refers to a historical, literal 144 hour period exactly why? Because your western, 20th century, literalistic, scientifically oriented brain defaults to that interpretation?

 

[versastyle]

Yeah what he said!

 

[Vance]

Right, I think I am coming to see what two of the major issues for literalists really is. First, they think that a truth told via a literal history is somehow more "valid" or true than a truth told via a non-literal story. Second, they think that a person making a reference to a past "event" is conclusive evidence that the event is literal history. I simply don't see why either one of these is the case.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Vance, you're right. This is the irony: these literalists have accepted the Enlightenment's rationalistic way of throwing out whatever is not perceived as empirical, scientific, and objective. But in order to do this, they must reject not only the scientific understanding of origins, but also any faith- or experiential-based knowledge. The former they do (it's the source of YECism), but the second they most emphatically do not, and instead exalt such knowledge as premium, over science.

As I've said before, referencing a story in explanation of a truth does not require the story to be a historical account. In that quote about divorce, Jesus used the Genesis account in the exact manner in which it is to be used. The Genesis account is for insight into God, not for insight into history. Jesus quoted Genesis as a reference to this truth: God intended male and female to be together. He did not bring it about historically as it reads when you read the mythology as history.

 

[gluadys]

So much of this is semantics.

Even the definition of "literal" is being distorted by literalists to make any contortion of their interpretations of the text come under the umbrella of "literalism".

If the point is that Jesus and the apostles would not refer us to a story that isn't true I will happily agree. They would not. So when Jesus references Genesis to make a point about marriage, I accept that as evidence that Genesis is a true story.

That doesn't imply that it is literal fact.

Why Christians would want to place "truth" in the straightjacket of "fact" puzzles me no end. That is a materialist or positivist position.

 

[jbarcher]

Hi

When I was a really young Christian, my problem with taking Genesis 1 as something other than 6 24-hour days was because I necessarily associated allegorical interpretations with liberals--I mean the bunch who take something like the resurrection to be metaphorical. Or the kind that said that the Bible was zero history and total myth. Invariably these would hold to evolution. So when I heard something like, "It still takes authority away from God's Word." my reaction would be, in Bahnsen's words, "A surge of pious agreement rose up within me."

Though, I know now that isn't the case (it was revealed as a guilt by association fallacy, for starters). And as much as I'd like to say that that problem was just mine, it seems that when people challenge TE (or OEC, though I find them rare) on interpretation, they bring the resurrection into it--which tells you that they have the same association problem I had. But please don't castrate me and try to make it look like I'm saying I'm better. I'm not committed to any position, hence the entry in my profile. ()

 

[Vance]

Yes, jbarcher, it is also the "slippery slope" fallacy. I once counted four distinct logical fallacies in a single YEC post (and it wasn't even a long one!).

The point is correct, however, that ultimately every YEC argument eventually comes down, "Yeah, but if you believe THAT, then you can't really believe X, Y or Z". The fact that we still DO believe X, Y or Z, though, seems to rankle them for some odd reason.

 

[TwinCrier]

I'm asking about the creation story in Genesis. Do any YEC's believe that this could be story to describe real events?

For example. There may not have been a man truly named Adam. However there was a man who was given the human soul from God who was tempted to do something wrong. He then, in his new conscious, began to see the evilness of his ways.

How does the story above MEAN anything inherently different then the literal and historical creation story you hold to?

Why does a literal Adam mean more than "the first man to sin"?

Because we belive Adam was a real literal human. In parable's proper names aren't used. Also, a linage is given naming specific names. All those verses of 'begats' isn't there just to bore us during sunday school, it's there so we can see that Adam, Moses and Jesus are real people. Now Adam's name is not pronounced as we do in English, but the name Adam is what we use for that first man which God created.

 

[versastyle]

Because we belive Adam was a real literal human. In parable's proper names aren't used. Also, a linage is given naming specific names. All those verses of 'begats' isn't there just to bore us during sunday school, it's there so we can see that Adam, Moses and Jesus are real people. Now Adam's name is not pronounced as we do in English, but the name Adam is what we use for that first man which God created.

I'm not even saying its a parable. I'm saying its a story that hints at historical facts. What is the difference?

There was a man.
He was given a soul.
He was tempted.
He sinned.
God punished him.
He had children.
He was an ancestor of Christ.

Thus far, from this point of view, the story of Genesis is still intact in its MEANING and PURPOSE, correct?
Paul even specifically states to stay away from genealogies. Why do YEC's consistently turn to them as being important? Why is a literal word for word Genesis more important than a story that touches on historical facts?

 

[Vance]

Or, just to present another possibility:

There were men.
They were given souls.
They were tempted.
They sinned.
God punished them.
They had children.
They were the ancestors of Christ.

Works either way, from where I am siting. But really, those genealogies definitely are there to tie Jesus to David, since this is the important Messianic point. There is no theological necessity to tie him all the way back to Adam, since even under a literal view, we all must come from Adam. But again, it would not have been a problem at all for people at that time to connect a literal lineage to a non-literal lineage. Many, many important Greek, Roman and Egyptian families traced their genealogies back to gods or mythical heroes. These heroes existed for them in a manner we don't quite grasp wholly today. It was a kind of half-legend, half-history way of viewing the past. Not quite history like their great grandfather, but more important, and in a way more substantive, than mere fiction. Again, we don't have this view of the past anymore, and our modern minds can't really "get it" very well. For us, it is either historically true, or it isn't.

 

[TwinCrier]

I'm not even saying its a parable. I'm saying its a story that hints at historical facts. What is the difference?

There was a man.
He was given a soul.
He was tempted.
He sinned.
God punished him.
He had children.
He was an ancestor of Christ.

Thus far, from this point of view, the story of Genesis is still intact in its MEANING and PURPOSE, correct?
Paul even specifically states to stay away from genealogies. Why do YEC's consistently turn to them as being important? Why is a literal word for word Genesis more important than a story that touches on historical facts?

The difference is, we believe it is historical fact, not just hints. Now in context, Paul never said to avoid genealogies, that's not possible. Everyone has one. If genealogies bother you feel free to cross them out of your bible. In context, that verse Titus 3:9 confirms where verse 7 says we are made heirs in Christ, however, if you want to ignore the geneologies in the bible, go ahead and cross them out. may take a lot of ink though. Now I understand that you may not interpret Genesis as saying Adam was a person, or at least not a specific person, but I do. If when we get to heaven I'm wrong and there is no first man, feel free to say nana nana boo boo and stick out your tongue at me.

 

[versastyle]

If when we get to heaven I'm wrong and there is no first man, feel free to say nana nana boo boo and stick out your tongue at me.

I understand your point of view, my problem is can't figure out why you think its important or MORE important than the one I proposed.

I believe both are possible and I don't hold to either one: evolution/creationism. My problem is WHY HOLD TO ONE.

 

[TwinCrier]

It's much easier to 'hold to one' when that is the one you believe.

 

[Vance]

Ah, but this issue is the degree to which you hold to it, and how willing you would be to change that position if there were sufficient bases, both factual and theological, to do so. Holding on to something out of stubborness and "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" is a very human reaction. I am not saying at all that is what you are doing, but I think that there are varying degrees of certitude about issues. The more important an issue is to the essential doctrines of the Church, the more strongly we should cling to it. And the corollary would be true as well.

 

[DailyBlessings]

In parable's proper names aren't used.

What about the poor man, Lazarus- The one who went to heaven while the "rich man" did not?

 

[Didaskomenos]

What about the poor man, Lazarus- The one who went to heaven while the "rich man" did not?

But of course, that means it's a historical account!

 

[TwinCrier]

Ah, but this issue is the degree to which you hold to it, and how willing you would be to change that position if there were sufficient bases, both factual and theological, to do so. Holding on to something out of stubborness and "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" is a very human reaction. I am not saying at all that is what you are doing, but I think that there are varying degrees of certitude about issues. The more important an issue is to the essential doctrines of the Church, the more strongly we should cling to it. And the corollary would be true as well.

The same can be said of some evolutionists. IF I ever a) find the bible to be false or b) find evidence that convinces me of some form of evolution, I will switch back.

 

[TwinCrier]

What about the poor man, Lazarus- The one who went to heaven while the "rich man" did not?

Are you saying that is a parable?