Can we agree on this?

[Keachian]

I wonder too if "from the beginning of creation" is idiomatic, in which case Creationists probably shouldn't read any more into it than they read into "from the ends of the earth".

Yes, it could very well, however the only thing I could think of it referring to is the creation accounts in Genesis, but as they are a part of Torah I would have thought that he'd use the same idiom which is Moses/the Law

 

[Keachian]

Christ did not have full knowledge of creation,

WAATTTTFFFFF I CANT HELP YOU I WILL NOT RESPOND ANYMORE YOU ARE UNHELPABLE GG CYA ROUND

I gave you a reference for something else the Son did not know

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, it could very well, however the only thing I could think of it referring to is the creation accounts in Genesis, but as they are a part of Torah I would have thought that he'd use the same idiom which is Moses/the Law

Not if he was pointing to a higher plan for marriage, one that predated Moses and his rules for divorce. It certainly does point back to the creation accounts, which Jesus goes on to quote. The difference with it being idiomatic is that it is a phrase that simply points back to the creation rather than being meant as a precise description to analyse grammatically and establish precisely when God created mankind.

 

[Greg1234]

What does studying the meaning of the bible have to do with Darwinian theories? Christian scholars have understood the creation account to be allegorical long before Darwin came around.

I was asking why you went towards a more direct influence of the spirit rather than go towards matter when interpreting. The basic idea is this-

Allegory = opposite of literal

Creationism = literal

Allegory = opposite of Creationism

Creationism = direct special creation

Opposite of direct special creation = no direct special creation

Allegory = opposite = no special creation = Darwinism

Mission: simply show bible has allegory.

When you interpreted "God breathed" you went towards a more direct influence of the spirit (aka "poof") rather than following Darwinian theories on the matter.

 

[Keachian]

I might as well add this quote to the discussion as I think it is relevant to my point in case anyone wants to pick up Jinx's discussion with me again

"The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height." -- John Calvin

Jinx overreacted to a supposition on my part and while I believe it has enough weight to bring it up the above quote I think is just as likely, where we have God talking to his people in baby language.

 

[gluadys]

I was asking why you went towards a more direct influence of the spirit rather than go towards matter when interpreting. The basic idea is this-

Allegory = opposite of literal

Creationism = literal

Allegory = opposite of Creationism

Creationism = direct special creation

Opposite of direct special creation = no direct special creation

Allegory = opposite = no special creation = Darwinism

Mission: simply show bible has allegory.

That view would have astounded Christian teachers from Paul, Origen and Augustine well into the 14th century since in this whole time period almost all interpretation of scripture was allegorical. The point of bible study for over 1500 years was to understand its allegories.

This is not to say they were unaware of literal meanings, but that they considered literal meaning to be of lesser importance than allegorical meaning. Yet despite the prominence given to allegory throughout the Middle Ages, there is no hint medieval scholars denied direct special creation.

History, it seems, tells us the equation you are making between allegory in scripture and denial of direct, special creation is non-existent.

 

[Greg1234]

That view would have astounded Christian teachers from Paul, Origen and Augustine

I'm not talking about any of them.

 

[miamited]

hi Philis,

Well, I think by now the answer would seem to be a clear 'no'. I hope that you don't misunderstand my intention and knowledge of the Scriptures. Certianly there are contained within the Scriptures between the, "Let there be..." to "Now the dwelling of men is with God..." allegory, simile and metaphor. After all, Jesus even told his disciples that there was a purpose in his speaking to Israel in parables. However, that was also fulfillment of a prophecy in which we were told that the Messiah would speak to the people in parables. Because God has already made it abundantly clear to Israel what He expected, Jesus then came to them and spoke in parables so that still most of them, certainly those who couldn't believe or accept the plain truth, would still not understand. He tells his disciples that that was the very reason he spoke to them in parables.

However, just because we agree that the Scriptures do use allegory, simile, metaphor and parable doesn't mean that everything spoken is of that nature. Most of, some greater than 90%, of God's word, His written revelation to mankind is true and factual. Now, everyone agrees, I'm sure if they've studied basic english, that a simile or metaphor is a linguistic tool that makes a point or truth known by using some word or phrase that is understood in it's similarity to the point or truth.

When the Scriptures say that 'they will rise up as on eagle's wings,' it is understood that we will be lifted up with similar equality to what is known as one of the most powerful animal forces that flies higher than any other bird in all of God's creation.

Now, dictionary.com defines allegory as: The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.

So, here's the question: What is the abstract idea, or the prinicple that is represented in God's narrative of the creation whereby He causes to be written that each day consisted of an evening and a morning? Let's agree that God did not intend for us to understand that the day was actually an evening and a morning, but that phrase represented an abstract idea or principle that He wanted to convey. What is that abstract idea or principle?

You see, I'm not willing to accept the argument that because in some other place God uses allegory, simile, metaphor or parable, that He must therefore be doing that in this place unless you can explain to me how such an allegory, simile, mataphor or parable applies to what He has caused to be written in this place.

I mean, yes, I can read Jesus' parables and see the underlying message of that parable and Jesus even explains a few of them for his disciples. Yes, I can read that we are lifted up as on the wings of eagles and clearly understand what picture and understanding that metaphor paints for the reader. But I don't see the allegorical or metaphorical meaning of the statement, "and there was evening and morning the first day." I can't find any record of such a literary device ever being used in all of mankinds writings.

I can find thousands of references in song and writing where someone might speak of the downtrodden and lonely being lifted up as on the wings of eagles, but I can't find any explanation by which I can understand this allegory or metaphor that says, 'and there was evening and morning the first day.'

Help me please. Show me any, any absolutely any literary use in any other written matter that has ever been penned in all the days of the world where someone used this allegory and explain what it means other than the description of a day. Just one. That's all I ask. If any of you are so set that this single phrase is obviously an allegory, then show me one single use of it in all of history.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Assyrian]

hi Philis,

Well, I think by now the answer would seem to be a clear 'no'. I hope that you don't misunderstand my intention and knowledge of the Scriptures. Certianly there are contained within the Scriptures between the, "Let there be..." to "Now the dwelling of men is with God..." allegory, simile and metaphor. After all, Jesus even told his disciples that there was a purpose in his speaking to Israel in parables. However, that was also fulfillment of a prophecy in which we were told that the Messiah would speak to the people in parables. Because God has already made it abundantly clear to Israel what He expected, Jesus then came to them and spoke in parables so that still most of them, certainly those who couldn't believe or accept the plain truth, would still not understand. He tells his disciples that that was the very reason he spoke to them in parables.

However, just because we agree that the Scriptures do use allegory, simile, metaphor and parable doesn't mean that everything spoken is of that nature. Most of, some greater than 90%, of God's word, His written revelation to mankind is true and factual.

I suspect it is less than that, but a more important question is what kind of literature it is, and even more important who is telling us. You see creationists consider Genesis as history therefore think it must be literal like the books of Kings and Chronicles. But if you look at say Luke, we see the writer carefully research his material and writing his account. The historical books in the OT regularly refer to other books they used to write their chronicle. The writing is inspired but it is inspired historical research.

But look at the creation in Genesis. There were no human eyewitnesses, no historical records to consult. The creation account comes as a prophetic revelation from God. But that takes it into a completely different genre from chronicles even though it is talking about the past, because God's prophetic revelation are often highly figurative. You see, the bible contains figurative accounts of history too, Moses' song of Jeshurun, God's own description of the exodus which you mention in this post, carrying the Israelites out on eagle's wings, Ezekiel 16's prophetic picture of Jerusalem and her sisters, his story of the eagle and the vine in chapter 17, even Jesus told parables describing the history (and future) of Israel.

Now, everyone agrees, I'm sure if they've studied basic english, that a simile or metaphor is a linguistic tool that makes a point or truth known by using some word or phrase that is understood in it's similarity to the point or truth.

When the Scriptures say that 'they will rise up as on eagle's wings,' it is understood that we will be lifted up with similar equality to what is known as one of the most powerful animal forces that flies higher than any other bird in all of God's creation.

Now, dictionary.com defines allegory as: The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.

So, here's the question: What is the abstract idea, or the prinicple that is represented in God's narrative of the creation whereby He causes to be written that each day consisted of an evening and a morning? Let's agree that God did not intend for us to understand that the day was actually an evening and a morning, but that phrase represented an abstract idea or principle that He wanted to convey. What is that abstract idea or principle?

You see, I'm not willing to accept the argument that because in some other place God uses allegory, simile, metaphor or parable, that He must therefore be doing that in this place unless you can explain to me how such an allegory, simile, mataphor or parable applies to what He has caused to be written in this place.

One idea that would have been much more apparent to people back then was that it was the story of the construction of a temple where God rested and reigned over his creation. Don't forget how the OT law and the temple itself was a shadow of what Moses glimpsed in heaven. Heb 8:5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." But it wasn't that Moses saw an actual temple in heaven and built a copy on earth, the temple itself was a shadow, a picture of Christ's death and resurrection, a picture of Christ reigning from the mercy seat in heaven.

In the book of Exodus we see Moses using the six day creation account and seventh day rest to teach Sabbath observance. But the Sabbath itself is a shadow of Christ too Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. So, what do we have, the purpose, one purpose anyway, of the account of the creation weak was to teach Sabbath observance which is itself a picture of Christ and his redemption.

We see Moses treating the story of God's seventh day rest as an anthropomorphism, not only did God rest on the seventh day, but like a weary migrant worker in the fields, God is refreshed after a day's rest.
Exodus 23:12 Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

God does not grow weary, but, and here is the really odd thing, he does identify himself with us, he cares for the poor, the widows and the sick, the ones we take care of we are taking care of Christ, when we ignore them we are ignoring Christ. God's greatest act of identification was the incarnation and the cross where God the Son bore our sins and sorrows, and spent the seventh day of the week still in the grave before being raised in power from the dead.

The writer of Hebrews in chapters 3&4 also takes God's seventh day rest and reads it as the rest we are commanded to enter into today, an ongoing rest that is a picture of the Gospel we enter by resting from our own works. Fort he writer of Hebrew the Seventh day of the creation week wasn't a 24hour day finished thousands of years ago, but was the promise of salvation the restoration of our relationship with God we enter through faith not world.

I mean, yes, I can read Jesus' parables and see the underlying message of that parable and Jesus even explains a few of them for his disciples. Yes, I can read that we are lifted up as on the wings of eagles and clearly understand what picture and understanding that metaphor paints for the reader. But I don't see the allegorical or metaphorical meaning of the statement, "and there was evening and morning the first day." I can't find any record of such a literary device ever being used in all of mankinds writings.

I can find thousands of references in song and writing where someone might speak of the downtrodden and lonely being lifted up as on the wings of eagles, but I can't find any explanation by which I can understand this allegory or metaphor that says, 'and there was evening and morning the first day.'

Help me please. Show me any, any absolutely any literary use in any other written matter that has ever been penned in all the days of the world where someone used this allegory and explain what it means other than the description of a day. Just one. That's all I ask. If any of you are so set that this single phrase is obviously an allegory, then show me one single use of it in all of history.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

That exact phrase? That is so iconically Genesis 1 that you won't find anywhere else unless someone is specifically referencing Genesis. Can you find evening and morning used non literally? Sure and in the bible itself Gen 49:27 "Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil." Zeph 3:3 Her officials within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves that leave nothing till the morning. Here the passage of time only has meaning within the context of the wolf metaphor, there is no literal chronological significance of the evening and morning. Then we have Psalm 90:5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning: 6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers. Here evening and morning do refer to the passage of time, but to longer period of time than a single day, the human lifespan. Even more interestingly, this psalm of Moses is filled with imagery he takes from Genesis, the formation of the earth, the sons of Adam being turned back to dust, God sweeping us away with a flood.

But I think the closest equivalent to the use of time in Genesis is Jesus' parable of the labourers in the vineyard in Matthew 20 where the owner of the vineyard who went out early in the morning to hire labourers for his vineyard Matt 20:1. We are given regualar time checks all through the parable: the third hour, the sixth hour, the ninth hour, the eleventh hour, and then the evening came. But the parable isn't about a specific passage of time, it isn't talking about literal hours and there is no scale you can apply to the hours to convert them into real time. You have very specific references to time in the parable, but it doesn't mean it is talking about the literal time of the day.