Creationists, what's up with two creation stories?

[gluadys]

That is what I mean by "literal".

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to explain a little better. I understand your interpretation.

What I do not understand is why you call this interpretation "literal".

I think you will agree that it is not an obvious interpretation. It took you many years of study to work it out.

To me, a literal interpretation is just the opposite. It is what our friend busterdog calls the "surface text". And what our friend Vossler calls the "clear meaning". To me "literal" means the up-front, what-you-see-is-what-you-get meaning that an 8-year old reading the text for the first time would take as the meaning.

Obviously, that is not what you are presenting.

So we have a very different idea of what is "literal".


I've explained what I mean by "literal". Can you explain what you mean, and why you call your interpretation "literal"?

 

[GenemZ]

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to explain a little better. I understand your interpretation.

What I do not understand is why you call this interpretation "literal".

I think you will agree that it is not an obvious interpretation. It took you many years of study to work it out.

To me, a literal interpretation is just the opposite. It is what our friend busterdog calls the "surface text". And what our friend Vossler calls the "clear meaning". To me "literal" means the up-front, what-you-see-is-what-you-get meaning that an 8-year old reading the text for the first time would take as the meaning.

If an eight year old could do it? God would not have to assign the gift of pastor-teacher to bring us to maturity. Would He? (Ephesians 4:10-12) And , the pastor must reach maturity to reveal what is needed for maturity. We are all growing if we are walking in the Spirit. We can not pout and wish to play with dolls or toy soldiers forever.

That eight year old you speak of? Would have to be able to read Hebrew and Greek to see the plain text. So?

I wonder? You can read Hebrew and Greek? You can see what words were being used in the Bible as it had been written?

If not? You need someone to show you. English words will not truly convey what the original languages say, unless we are told why an English word appears in translation.

Once we are shown? Then it should become apparent. That is. if we do not insist on God making the Word clear on terms we demand of God, before we will accept Truth.

If you back track, you will see what I presented several times in this thread, concerning the distinctly different Hebrew words used in Genesis 1,and 2. You would see that the plain text will explain itself if you are willing to listen to reason as to why the words appear.

The Holy Spirit had each word placed in Scripture for a reason. For the spiritual? It was for insight.

And... exposing men's hearts is God's ministry. He knows that some will hunger for and desire Truth. They shall find if they persist. Those who think God is a servant, whom they clap their hands, and He waits on them hand and foot? Will be left in the dark. They want everything worked out for them and made simple.

Milk is for babes in Christ only. Young babies can take in the milk even with their eyes closed. The meat of the Word is only for the mature. It requires chewing, not just swallowing what one is told.

Meat would choke a baby. So, its not for them. But, we are told we need to grow up and become mature in Christ. To chew and cut into what we are served.

The way we were once given Truth will not remain as it once was.

So be it.



In Christ, GeneZ




.

 

[gluadys]

If an eight year old could do it?

The question was directed to cleminson in regard to why he refers to his interpretation of the creation accounts as "literal"

God would not have to assign the gift of pastor-teacher to bring us to maturity. Would He?

And , the pastor must reach maturity to reveal what is needed for maturity. We are all growing if we are walking in the Spirit. We can not pout and wish to play with dolls or toy soldiers forever.

That eight year old you speak of? Would have to be able to read Hebrew and Greek to see the plain text. So?

Of course not. We need people who do understand Hebrew and Greek and who do have the gifts of teaching to help us go beyond the 8-year-olds literal understanding of the text to the real spiritual meaning of the text.

Cleminson has obviously put a lot of time and study into developing a deep-level meaning from the creation texts. Not one that would be obvious to an 8-year-old.

That is why I would not call his interpretation "literal" and I am asking why he does.

Same goes for your interpretation. It is not the obvious one anyone would come to on a surface reading. It requires specific understanding of the original languages and a well-developed hermeneutical approach.

So it is not a literal interpretation, is it?

Or, if you think it is, how do you define "literal"?

 

[cleminson]

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to explain a little better. I understand your interpretation.

What I do not understand is why you call this interpretation "literal".

I think you will agree that it is not an obvious interpretation. It took you many years of study to work it out.

To me, a literal interpretation is just the opposite. It is what our friend busterdog calls the "surface text". And what our friend Vossler calls the "clear meaning". To me "literal" means the up-front, what-you-see-is-what-you-get meaning that an 8-year old reading the text for the first time would take as the meaning.

Obviously, that is not what you are presenting.

So we have a very different idea of what is "literal".


I've explained what I mean by "literal". Can you explain what you mean, and why you call your interpretation "literal"?

In Wikipedia, it is suggested that Literal may refer to Literal and figurative language, taken in a non-figurative sense or refer to a Literal translation, the close adherence to the forms of a source language text and an adherence to literal interpretation and fundamentalism. I concur.
The English Oxford dictionary defines Literal in many ways but the bit that makes sense to this discussion is “pertaining to the “letter” of Scripture; in interpretation, applied to taking the words of a text, etc., in their natural and customary meaning. As opposed to mystical and allegorical. Representing the very words of the original. I concur with this as well.
I repeat, Genesis is a literal account of what Adam observed over many billenia.
If you asked an eight year old to in the 15th century to read the scriptures he might come up with a flat earth from reading Isaiah 11:12 “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” The Earth must be flat with a shape like a handkerchief. Yet in Isaiah 40:22, it says “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in”. Wow it must flat but like a saucer.??

To prove that it was the centre of the Universe one of Galileo’s attackers, a Dominican friar and professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, Father Lorini, preaching on All Soul’s Day, said that the Copernican doctrine violated the Bible and cited the following scriptures to support his attack on Galileo’s book.
In Joshua 10:13 “and the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Joshua “So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day”.
In Psalm 19:1-5 “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.” And again “day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” Again, “There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.” Again, “their line is gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,” and again “Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.”
In Psalm 104:1-5 “Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.”
Finally in Isaiah 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” That was the “natural and customary meaning” of that day.

Martin Luther criticized Copernicus as a “madman who, in his desire for a reputation, would subvert the whole science of astronomy”. An early reformist, Anthony Lauterbach, dined with Luther and quoted from the table conversation about Copernicus as follows “There was mention of a certain astrologer (Copernicus) who wanted to prove that the Earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the Earth and the trees were moving”. Luther also said, “So it goes now, whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.” He also said “The apostles were commanded to go into all the world, to preach the gospel to all mankind”. In his logic based on the traditional acceptance of Scripture, he stated that because the apostles did not go to a place on the far side of the Earth to preach, the antipodes (place at opposite side of the world) could not exist. So at that time it can be seen that incorrectly understanding Scriptures followed logical intelligent customs based on the Ptolemaic traditions and was not just the domain of the foolish. That was the “natural and customary meaning” of that day.

As I have said in my paper, our literal understanding of Scripture is based on the cultural and scientific understandings of the day. We live in a world that accepts as normal many things that we Christians would hopefully call sin. However if we begin to take parts of the Bible and make them allegorical just because we have not tried to understand them in their “in their natural and customary meanings” of today, then we are in danger of assigning other scriptures to the same allegorical state, ad nausea. We might as well disregard the whole Bible as allegorical as most unbelievers do.

Though my interpretation took many years to formulate I believe that it allows for a literal interpretation of the Genesis Scriptures in a “natural and customary meaning” for today. What’s more it explains a number of other conundrums regarding the sons of God, who the people in the Land of Nod were, and many others.

So I believe that my interpretation allows for a literal meaning to be assigned to the Genesis Scriptures. I respectfully hope that you now concur.

 

[CosmoJ]

My apologies if I offend anyone, I'm new to this. I do not believe evolution is a tenable understanding of creation, nor the Big Bang for that matter (the physics contradict the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle as a singularity would have to have both position and momentum, but that's another matter). Yet, I'm going to offer a new solution to the beginning of Genesis excerpted from my book 'The Time of the Christ'.

"A text as old as Moses could not have been written in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or any other language we could possibly know. I am certain it was first written in symbols, picture, hieroglyphs. Perhaps it was symbols in the sky. A stick picture of a man could mean Adam, a man, or ‘Man’. The same would be true of all the other ‘words’ used. But what profound ‘truth’ can be found in such simplicity of writing?
The idea ‘day’ is an abstract idea. I imagine ‘day’ in a symbolic style of writing was probably just a division, perhaps a wavy line separating ‘this’ event from ‘that’. Or ‘this’ reality, from ‘that’. If a line is dividing realities it does not necessarily mean ‘time’ per se. When the Greek was translated back into Hebrew the term became ‘day’, but before that it was 'Aeon'. Historically, the term ‘aeon’ did not specifically refer to 'time' as such, but ‘divinities of ages’ - the Seven Heavens, if you will. We have just seen that a secure concept of age as a ‘very long period of time’ could not have occurred until after Hipparchus. ‘Aeon’ as a ‘long age’ was not known until it was known there were ages. ‘Aeons’, then, were layers of reality: one based on change, another on time, another on matter… It refers to an evolving reality emanating down from God, each layer an Aeon.
Intrinsic to this theory is that each layer becomes less and less real as it devolves down from heaven, heaven being the most ‘real’ layer of reality. In other words, the entities of each layer don't really mix with each other - they are distinct separate but parallel eternities. One layer doesn’t fully participate in the next layer, it adds a bit to it, then gives way. The Corpus Hermeticum, the text that sparked the Renaissance and Humanism, advocated just such a cosmology.
However in Moses’ version of reality, the layers (aeons) coexist amongst the same reality - one eternity does not divide or give-way to the next. That which happens prior continues to exist and participate in the next reality. Therefore Moses must be refuting this prior ‘emanating’ philosophy of reality. Both cosmologies use the same term ‘aeon’ but they use it differently. It seemed implausible to Moses, as it does to me, that ‘time’ would be one entity spawning its own reality, ‘change’ would be another spawning its own reality, as would ‘matter’, and on and on… No, in Moses’ cosmology the aeons divide, yet they coexist, they are part of the same reality, not parallel realities. Therefore, the ‘aeons’ could be said to be mental divisions, not actual.
Moses calls something in this reality the ‘Tree of Knowledge’, yet, nowhere does he illustrate what it is… we think… For centuries, in fact millennium, (yes, until recently) there was a very well known teaching device called the Tree of Porphyry. It is said to be derived from Aristotle and looks like this:

(No picture here but I will include the 'Tree's' description from St. John Damascene Fount of Knowledge:

Substance is a most general genus. It is divided into corporeal and incorporeal,
The corporeal is divided into animate and inanimate.
The animate is divided into sentient (animal) and insentient (plant).
The animal is divided into rational and irrational.
The rational is divided into mortal [man/Adam] and immortal.

Notice the terms on the left [the diagram includes the Aritotelian term genus, species, etc.]. Darwin ‘borrowed’ these terms, confusing the issue, so that they could be applied to his Theory of Evolution. This 'tree' for centuries was the exact rebuttal for an emanating reality (which is why it is not taught anymore). In an emanating reality the distinctions made above are not possible – no such lines of distinction can be made (or are knowable). Modern philosophy is always looking for 'missing links' to deny the distinctions. It tries to fit things in between ‘living’ and ‘non-living’, between ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’. To do this denies the distinctions necessary for the mind to operate. Modern philosophy denies the obvious, that I can ‘know the difference’.
So, how do we know that Moses was refuting this sort of reality, this prior philosophy? If we assume that by 'aeon' he means real, logical distinctions of reality of the sort in the Tree of Porphyry, and we make precisely the same kind of distinctions/divisions, but apply the terms and the form found in the Bible, we verbatim get this Tree, the Tree of Knowledge:

[the article includes a picture of the days of Creation superimposed upon the Tree of Porphyry - they are the same diagram]

If this is Moses’ reality, then it is undeniably true. To deny it is to deny that reality can be known. If reality can’t be known, then the spirit of man is an illusion."

The Genesis account is clearly the missing 'Tree of Knowledge' for it represents the basic process of how Man makes distinctions, comes to know, and can have reason. There are also other metaphors in the account between Faith (Eve) and Reason (Adam - originally understood 'the animal who speaks').

I realize this account probably will not sit well with both sides of this debate, but I believe it is the correct understanding.

 

[vossler]

The Holy Spirit had each word placed in Scripture for a reason. For the spiritual? It was for insight.

And... exposing men's hearts is God's ministry. He knows that some will hunger for and desire Truth. They shall find if they persist. Those who think God is a servant, whom they clap their hands, and He waits on them hand and foot? Will be left in the dark. They want everything worked out for them and made simple.

Milk is for babes in Christ only. Young babies can take in the milk even with their eyes closed. The meat of the Word is only for the mature. It requires chewing, not just swallowing what one is told.

Meat would choke a baby. So, its not for them. But, we are told we need to grow up and become mature in Christ. To chew and cut into what we are served.

The way we were once given Truth will not remain as it once was.

I liked the entire post! All of it aligns with my spirit and how I interpret Scripture. Well done!

I just want to add that the Truth of Scripture will never contradict the "clear meaning" unless the context warrants it. That context can and should include the meaning of words in the original Hebrew and Greek where warranted. This is especially so when their meaning doesn't translate easily into our common language of English. The key is to keep any sort of potential meaning changes within the Scriptures themselves and never to allow an outside source to do so.

 

[cleminson]

My apologies if I offend anyone, I'm new to this. I do not believe evolution is a tenable understanding of creation, nor the Big Bang for that matter (the physics contradict the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle as a singularity would have to have both position and momentum, but that's another matter). Yet, I'm going to offer a new solution to the beginning of Genesis excerpted from my book 'The Time of the Christ'.

"A text as old as Moses could not have been written in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or any other language we could possibly know. I am certain it was first written in symbols, picture, hieroglyphs. Perhaps it was symbols in the sky. A stick picture of a man could mean Adam, a man, or ‘Man’. The same would be true of all the other ‘words’ used. But what profound ‘truth’ can be found in such simplicity of writing?
The idea ‘day’ is an abstract idea. I imagine ‘day’ in a symbolic style of writing was probably just a division, perhaps a wavy line separating ‘this’ event from ‘that’. Or ‘this’ reality, from ‘that’. If a line is dividing realities it does not necessarily mean ‘time’ per se. When the Greek was translated back into Hebrew the term became ‘day’, but before that it was 'Aeon'. Historically, the term ‘aeon’ did not specifically refer to 'time' as such, but ‘divinities of ages’ - the Seven Heavens, if you will. We have just seen that a secure concept of age as a ‘very long period of time’ could not have occurred until after Hipparchus. ‘Aeon’ as a ‘long age’ was not known until it was known there were ages. ‘Aeons’, then, were layers of reality: one based on change, another on time, another on matter… It refers to an evolving reality emanating down from God, each layer an Aeon.
Intrinsic to this theory is that each layer becomes less and less real as it devolves down from heaven, heaven being the most ‘real’ layer of reality. In other words, the entities of each layer don't really mix with each other - they are distinct separate but parallel eternities. One layer doesn’t fully participate in the next layer, it adds a bit to it, then gives way. The Corpus Hermeticum, the text that sparked the Renaissance and Humanism, advocated just such a cosmology.
However in Moses’ version of reality, the layers (aeons) coexist amongst the same reality - one eternity does not divide or give-way to the next. That which happens prior continues to exist and participate in the next reality. Therefore Moses must be refuting this prior ‘emanating’ philosophy of reality. Both cosmologies use the same term ‘aeon’ but they use it differently. It seemed implausible to Moses, as it does to me, that ‘time’ would be one entity spawning its own reality, ‘change’ would be another spawning its own reality, as would ‘matter’, and on and on… No, in Moses’ cosmology the aeons divide, yet they coexist, they are part of the same reality, not parallel realities. Therefore, the ‘aeons’ could be said to be mental divisions, not actual.
Moses calls something in this reality the ‘Tree of Knowledge’, yet, nowhere does he illustrate what it is… we think… For centuries, in fact millennium, (yes, until recently) there was a very well known teaching device called the Tree of Porphyry. It is said to be derived from Aristotle and looks like this:

(No picture here but I will include the 'Tree's' description from St. John Damascene Fount of Knowledge:

Substance is a most general genus. It is divided into corporeal and incorporeal,
The corporeal is divided into animate and inanimate.
The animate is divided into sentient (animal) and insentient (plant).
The animal is divided into rational and irrational.
The rational is divided into mortal [man/Adam] and immortal.

Notice the terms on the left [the diagram includes the Aritotelian term genus, species, etc.]. Darwin ‘borrowed’ these terms, confusing the issue, so that they could be applied to his Theory of Evolution. This 'tree' for centuries was the exact rebuttal for an emanating reality (which is why it is not taught anymore). In an emanating reality the distinctions made above are not possible – no such lines of distinction can be made (or are knowable). Modern philosophy is always looking for 'missing links' to deny the distinctions. It tries to fit things in between ‘living’ and ‘non-living’, between ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’. To do this denies the distinctions necessary for the mind to operate. Modern philosophy denies the obvious, that I can ‘know the difference’.
So, how do we know that Moses was refuting this sort of reality, this prior philosophy? If we assume that by 'aeon' he means real, logical distinctions of reality of the sort in the Tree of Porphyry, and we make precisely the same kind of distinctions/divisions, but apply the terms and the form found in the Bible, we verbatim get this Tree, the Tree of Knowledge:

[the article includes a picture of the days of Creation superimposed upon the Tree of Porphyry - they are the same diagram]

If this is Moses’ reality, then it is undeniably true. To deny it is to deny that reality can be known. If reality can’t be known, then the spirit of man is an illusion."

The Genesis account is clearly the missing 'Tree of Knowledge' for it represents the basic process of how Man makes distinctions, comes to know, and can have reason. There are also other metaphors in the account between Faith (Eve) and Reason (Adam - originally understood 'the animal who speaks').

I realize this account probably will not sit well with both sides of this debate, but I believe it is the correct understanding.

I find your work interesting but I still give those enigmatic Scriptures a literal meaning.

 

[gluadys]

In Wikipedia, it is suggested that Literal may refer to Literal and figurative language, taken in a non-figurative sense or refer to a Literal translation, the close adherence to the forms of a source language text and an adherence to literal interpretation and fundamentalism. I concur.

I accept these definitions of "literal" but I don't think they are pertinent to what we are discussing. It is well to remember them though, for sometimes non-literal is understood solely as "figurative" and that does not necessarily apply in all cases.

The English Oxford dictionary defines Literal in many ways but the bit that makes sense to this discussion is “pertaining to the “letter” of Scripture; in interpretation, applied to taking the words of a text, etc., in their natural and customary meaning. As opposed to mystical and allegorical.

Yes, that is the meaning I was referring to. I know that your interpretation is not intended to be mystical or allegorical. But it also seems to be to be far away from "a natural and customary meaning." That is why it does not strike me as literal.

If you asked an eight year old to in the 15th century to read the scriptures he might come up with a flat earth from reading

Absolutely. That is what a literal reading of the biblical text gives you.

Isaiah 11:12 “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”

The Earth must be flat with a shape like a handkerchief.

Yet in Isaiah 40:22, it says “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in”. Wow it must flat but like a saucer.??

Right. These ideas capture the literal meaning of the texts.

To prove that it was the centre of the Universe one of Galileo’s attackers, a Dominican friar and professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, Father Lorini, preaching on All Soul’s Day, said that the Copernican doctrine violated the Bible and cited the following scriptures to support his attack on Galileo’s book.

In Joshua 10:13 “and the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Joshua “So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day”. In Psalm 19:1-5 “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.” And again “day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” Again, “There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.” Again, “their line is gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,” and again “Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.” In Psalm 104:1-5 “Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Finally in Isaiah 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”

That was the “natural and customary meaning” of that day.

And not just the 15th century either. It was the normal and customary meaning for the original authors and audience and is the natural and customary sense of the words today, as well.

When we interpret them differently, we are no longer interpreting them literally.

Martin Luther criticized Copernicus as a “madman who, in his desire for a reputation, would subvert the whole science of astronomy”. An early reformist, Anthony Lauterbach, dined with Luther and quoted from the table conversation about Copernicus as follows “There was mention of a certain astrologer (Copernicus) who wanted to prove that the Earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the Earth and the trees were moving”. Luther also said, “So it goes now, whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.” He also said “The apostles were commanded to go into all the world, to preach the gospel to all mankind”. In his logic based on the traditional acceptance of Scripture, he stated that because the apostles did not go to a place on the far side of the Earth to preach, the antipodes (place at opposite side of the world) could not exist. So at that time it can be seen that incorrectly understanding Scriptures followed logical intelligent customs based on the Ptolemaic traditions and was not just the domain of the foolish. [/FONT]

Indeed not. People of those times were not foolish, just less informed about the structure of the cosmos. They couldn't know, without a telescope, all the amazing things we have since discovered.

So we know that the literal sense of scripture in these cases is not the correct sense. But they lived before this was known.

That was the “natural and customary meaning” of that day.

Well, as I see it, it is still the natural and customary meaning of the text as it stands. We just no longer take that natural and customary meaning to be correct.

Is this perhaps where the problem comes in? Is it important to you to identify a "literal" meaning with a "correct" meaning?

For my part I have no problem identifying a literal meaning with what we would now call an incorrect meaning, although it was thought to be correct at the time it was written.

[As I have said in my paper, our literal understanding of Scripture is based on the cultural and scientific understandings of the day.

Yes, that I agree with.

What puzzles me is why, when updating to our modern cultural and scientific understandings, there is still an impetus to call the revised interpretation "literal".

However if we begin to take parts of the Bible and make them allegorical just because we have not tried to understand them in their “in their natural and customary meanings” of today, then we are in danger of assigning other scriptures to the same allegorical state, ad nausea.

Ah, here we seem to be getting at the nub of things. I don't see how anything in the bible can have a 21st century "natural and customary" meaning, unless that meaning has been retained since ancient times.

So, for example, we don't need to struggle with the passages of the 23rd Psalm that say "He leads me beside the still waters; he makes me to lie down in green pastures." because the task of a shepherd today still includes taking the sheep to water and pasture.

The literal meaning of the Psalmist is still a natural and common sense meaning today.

But we cannot accept the literal meaning of "the earth does not move" because we know that it does. The Psalmist was unaware of the movement of the earth around the sun. His literal meaning made sense in his time. But to us, this literal meaning is not correct.

Now two things follow from this. When we reject the literal meaning of "the earth does not move" are we substituting an allegorical meaning?

I would say not. We are not claiming any deep and myterious hidden meaning in the Psalmist's statement. We are just noting that it does not accord with what we know to be true given a better model of the universe.

OTOH, why do you associate allegorical meaning with danger? In the case of the parables for which Jesus gave interpretations, he used allegory to interpret them. In almost every case where the NT interprets the OT, the NT writers use allegory.

Allegory was the most common hermeneutic used by the Church in interpreting scripture for over a millennium.

So what is wrong with allegory?

We might as well disregard the whole Bible as allegorical as most unbelievers do.

Well, that attitude may make sense to unbelievers, but it doesn't make sense to me. Why would the presence of allegory in the bible be a reason to disregard it?

Again this speaks of a mind-set that sees something wrong with allegory.

I see this mind-set as more problematical than allegory itself.

Though my interpretation took many years to formulate I believe that it allows for a literal interpretation of the Genesis Scriptures in a “natural and customary meaning” for today. What’s more it explains a number of other conundrums regarding the sons of God, who the people in the Land of Nod were, and many others. So I believe that my interpretation allows for a literal meaning to be assigned to the Genesis Scriptures. I respectfully hope that you now concur.

What I am seeing is that you set a great deal of value on the term "literal" and place a negative value on what is not literal, especially allegory.

It seems to me it is important to you to call your interpretation "literal" not because it is literal but because the term "literal" conveys to you that it is valuable, while a term like "symbolic" or "spiritual" or [shudder] "allegory" suggests to you something without value, even with negative value.

It is that value system that puzzles me. I think it leads to a distortion of meaning, for you move well out of the orbit of the natural and customary meaning of the text, but because it is emotionally important to you that a good interpretation of scripture be a "literal" one, no matter what, you have to hang on to that description, even when it is objectively inappropriate.

 

[gluadys]

(No picture here but I will include the 'Tree's' description from St. John Damascene Fount of Knowledge:

Substance is a most general genus. It is divided into corporeal and incorporeal,
The corporeal is divided into animate and inanimate.
The animate is divided into sentient (animal) and insentient (plant).
The animal is divided into rational and irrational.
The rational is divided into mortal [man/Adam] and immortal.

Interestingly, if we take the sections from "corporeal" to "mortal", this is still pretty consistent with science today.

We still classify the corporeal as either animate (alive) or inanimate (not living).

We still see two of the major divisions of the animate as plant and animal, though we have also added such classifications as fungi, protista and bacteria that St. John of Damascene would not have been aware of.

We still distinguish between rational and non-rational--although we may place that division a little differently.

So it is only on the extreme ends (incorporeal and immortal) that this ancient tree passes beyond the study of science.

 

[CosmoJ]

Thank you for you thoughtful reply - I am merely trying to find a common ground, perhaps a deeper understanding, for the two sides to come together on.

I do agree with your assessment of the term 'literal'. However, at some point Christianity must face the fact that it is in, and has been in a dilemma. I am not Roman Catholic, but we must begin to accept this simple fact: either Rome is, in fact, the One True Holy Church OR there must be some underneath guiding doctrine (philosophy, tradition if you will) guiding the way scripture is to be understood if for no other reason than to protect us from the myriad of 'literal' translations. There are just too many denominations out there, all claiming to be literal, with contradicting principles and understandings of the Bible. If not, the Bible, like society, will be reduced to a compromise that stands for nothing. It's Pandora's box.

I have never met a liberal or conservative Christian that didn't advocate a 'literal' understanding of the Bible - it is just that their understanding of the term 'literal' is even in dispute. As you say, is a parable morally true, allegorically true, philosophically true, or actually true? It is this characteristic of modern Christianity that looks like chaos to the outsider and allows them to use debates like evolution vs. creation to fracture the Church and create doubt. It is this characteristic that also allows some Christians to claim 'literal' doctrine that no ancient Christian would have even thought of. For example, how many Christians use 'hermeneutics' to spiritually translate scripture? Yet, that very philosophy itself is derived from Hermeticism (Hermes) that 'an inner voice tells you what to think'.

While I do not ascribe to evolution, I do not think it is wrong for reasonable people to ask for some clarity here, and we should respond to it with charity. Yet, without that same clarity, we must begin to realize that we are also susceptible to the very Gnosticism (even when disguised as someone's literalism) that has always eroded the church.

PS - Did you know that Copernicus' original Solar System diagram was a talisman to the God Hermes Trismegistus (the text is always cut off in textbooks)? And that even the Galileo debate was hiding a doctrine that challenged the Eucharist (Galileo was challenging transubstantiation - Rome had changed her calendars almost forty years before the trial because they knew they were in error)?

In my book I try to show that one of the the things necessary for Christianity to develop was Hipparchus' discovery that the earth was spherical and was being shaken. He does this by the discovery of an ancient poem stating where the heavens should be - AND they had moved! It is St. Paul who quotes this poem after Mars hill replacing the name Zeus the earth shaker with the concept of the One God as revealed in Christ.

 

[cleminson]

My apologies if I offend anyone, I'm new to this. I do not believe evolution is a tenable understanding of creation, nor the Big Bang for that matter (the physics contradict the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle as a singularity would have to have both position and momentum, but that's another matter). Yet, I'm going to offer a new solution to the beginning of Genesis excerpted from my book 'The Time of the Christ'.

"A text as old as Moses could not have been written in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or any other language we could possibly know. I am certain it was first written in symbols, picture, hieroglyphs. Perhaps it was symbols in the sky. A stick picture of a man could mean Adam, a man, or ‘Man’. The same would be true of all the other ‘words’ used. But what profound ‘truth’ can be found in such simplicity of writing?
The idea ‘day’ is an abstract idea. I imagine ‘day’ in a symbolic style of writing was probably just a division, perhaps a wavy line separating ‘this’ event from ‘that’. Or ‘this’ reality, from ‘that’. If a line is dividing realities it does not necessarily mean ‘time’ per se. When the Greek was translated back into Hebrew the term became ‘day’, but before that it was 'Aeon'. Historically, the term ‘aeon’ did not specifically refer to 'time' as such, but ‘divinities of ages’ - the Seven Heavens, if you will. We have just seen that a secure concept of age as a ‘very long period of time’ could not have occurred until after Hipparchus. ‘Aeon’ as a ‘long age’ was not known until it was known there were ages. ‘Aeons’, then, were layers of reality: one based on change, another on time, another on matter… It refers to an evolving reality emanating down from God, each layer an Aeon.
Intrinsic to this theory is that each layer becomes less and less real as it devolves down from heaven, heaven being the most ‘real’ layer of reality. In other words, the entities of each layer don't really mix with each other - they are distinct separate but parallel eternities. One layer doesn’t fully participate in the next layer, it adds a bit to it, then gives way. The Corpus Hermeticum, the text that sparked the Renaissance and Humanism, advocated just such a cosmology.
However in Moses’ version of reality, the layers (aeons) coexist amongst the same reality - one eternity does not divide or give-way to the next. That which happens prior continues to exist and participate in the next reality. Therefore Moses must be refuting this prior ‘emanating’ philosophy of reality. Both cosmologies use the same term ‘aeon’ but they use it differently. It seemed implausible to Moses, as it does to me, that ‘time’ would be one entity spawning its own reality, ‘change’ would be another spawning its own reality, as would ‘matter’, and on and on… No, in Moses’ cosmology the aeons divide, yet they coexist, they are part of the same reality, not parallel realities. Therefore, the ‘aeons’ could be said to be mental divisions, not actual.
Moses calls something in this reality the ‘Tree of Knowledge’, yet, nowhere does he illustrate what it is… we think… For centuries, in fact millennium, (yes, until recently) there was a very well known teaching device called the Tree of Porphyry. It is said to be derived from Aristotle and looks like this:

(No picture here but I will include the 'Tree's' description from St. John Damascene Fount of Knowledge:

Substance is a most general genus. It is divided into corporeal and incorporeal,
The corporeal is divided into animate and inanimate.
The animate is divided into sentient (animal) and insentient (plant).
The animal is divided into rational and irrational.
The rational is divided into mortal [man/Adam] and immortal.

Notice the terms on the left [the diagram includes the Aritotelian term genus, species, etc.]. Darwin ‘borrowed’ these terms, confusing the issue, so that they could be applied to his Theory of Evolution. This 'tree' for centuries was the exact rebuttal for an emanating reality (which is why it is not taught anymore). In an emanating reality the distinctions made above are not possible – no such lines of distinction can be made (or are knowable). Modern philosophy is always looking for 'missing links' to deny the distinctions. It tries to fit things in between ‘living’ and ‘non-living’, between ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’. To do this denies the distinctions necessary for the mind to operate. Modern philosophy denies the obvious, that I can ‘know the difference’.
So, how do we know that Moses was refuting this sort of reality, this prior philosophy? If we assume that by 'aeon' he means real, logical distinctions of reality of the sort in the Tree of Porphyry, and we make precisely the same kind of distinctions/divisions, but apply the terms and the form found in the Bible, we verbatim get this Tree, the Tree of Knowledge:

[the article includes a picture of the days of Creation superimposed upon the Tree of Porphyry - they are the same diagram]

If this is Moses’ reality, then it is undeniably true. To deny it is to deny that reality can be known. If reality can’t be known, then the spirit of man is an illusion."

The Genesis account is clearly the missing 'Tree of Knowledge' for it represents the basic process of how Man makes distinctions, comes to know, and can have reason. There are also other metaphors in the account between Faith (Eve) and Reason (Adam - originally understood 'the animal who speaks').

I realize this account probably will not sit well with both sides of this debate, but I believe it is the correct understanding.

Cosmo if you have the fortitude, patience of Job and an open mind as to how we understand God,s word in the context of our society read the thread, My Genesis Enigma in the Creationist section and please let me know of any problems you might have with it. I value critisism of my work more you can imagine. Yours in Christ.

 

[cleminson]

I accept these definitions of "literal" but I don't think they are pertinent to what we are discussing. It is well to remember them though, for sometimes non-literal is understood solely as "figurative" and that does not necessarily apply in all cases.




Yes, that is the meaning I was referring to. I know that your interpretation is not intended to be mystical or allegorical. But it also seems to be to be far away from "a natural and customary meaning." That is why it does not strike me as literal.

So we know that the literal sense of scripture in these cases is not the correct sense. But they lived before this was known.

Is this perhaps where the problem comes in? Is it important to you to identify a "literal" meaning with a "correct" meaning?

What puzzles me is why, when updating to our modern cultural and scientific understandings, there is still an impetus to call the revised interpretation "literal".

The literal meaning of the Psalmist is still a natural and common sense meaning today.

Allegory was the most common hermeneutic used by the Church in interpreting scripture for over a millennium.

So what is wrong with allegory?

Well, that attitude may make sense to unbelievers, but it doesn't make sense to me. Why would the presence of allegory in the bible be a reason to disregard it?

It is that value system that puzzles me. I think it leads to a distortion of meaning, for you move well out of the orbit of the natural and customary meaning of the text, but because it is emotionally important to you that a good interpretation of scripture be a "literal" one, no matter what, you have to hang on to that description, even when it is objectively inappropriate.

I believe that the Bible is full of alegories and parables some of which will take on literal meanings as our society progresses or until the Lord comes again. I believe that our Bible is robust enough to stand if the "missing link" were found and even if we we were to be visited from men from outer space.
The vast majority of our global society has accepted the thought that some form of evolution occured, so the concept of evolution is a possibility to most. We should now take the early Genesis Scriptures and bring them from the alegorical to the literal i.e. bring them up to date to suit the cultural and scientific understandings of the day. That is what I believe my paper achieves, my theory is certainly not alegorical and I assign literal meaning to those Scriptures. It all makes sense to me and others. Try to introduce The Genesis scriptures into your doctrine, it works and it only a short step from where you are now. Become a Creationist (Oh no!) TE. Chuckle!!

 

[gluadys]

I believe that our Bible is robust enough to stand if the "missing link" were found and even if we we were to be visited from men from outer space.

The vast majority of our global society has accepted the thought that some form of evolution occured, so the concept of evolution is a possibility to most. We should now take the early Genesis Scriptures and bring them from the alegorical to the literal i.e. bring them up to date to suit the cultural and scientific understandings of the day.

I agree, though I would see this as going from the literal understanding to a non-literal (not necessarily allegorical) understanding.

I am still mystified by the mind-set that assumes literal=good and non-literal=unacceptable.

That is what I believe my paper achieves, my theory is certainly not alegorical and I assign literal meaning to those Scriptures. It all makes sense to me and others.

I am sure it makes sense to you. But I do not understand what you mean by "assign" literal meaning. Can one assign a literal meaning that is not the ordinary meaning of the text?

 

[cleminson]

I agree, though I would see this as going from the literal understanding to a non-literal (not necessarily allegorical) understanding.

I am still mystified by the mind-set that assumes literal=good and non-literal=unacceptable.

I am sure it makes sense to you. But I do not understand what you mean by "assign" literal meaning. Can one assign a literal meaning that is not the ordinary meaning of the text?

As I am sure I have explained before, I believe that we assign certain parts of scripture to the allegorical when it does not fit into our particular brand of theology, to create a belief that we are comfortable with. So those scriptures that fit our belief become literal e.g. Christ was slain for our sins. Belief in Adam however does not easily fit into a secular or Christian understanding of evolution, therefore it must be allegorical. No.

My mind set is not that all the allegory in the Bible is wrong, however I am now comfortable that Creation does not need to be allegorical but literal. Sin was forgiven prior to Jesus on the day of attonement but new life was offered back to the Jews by Jesus. Jesus forgave sin before He died i.e. He did not need to die on the Cross to forgive our sins. However, we can only understand that New Life if we understand that Jesus had to die on the Cross to undo Adam's first death. To do this I believe we need to accept, as Jesus clearly did, Adam's existence. So on this topic of Creation I believe that Allegorical = wrong and litteral = right. It makes for good theology but more importantly it gives me a much deeper love for my Lord than I had before I "understood" creation and Adams first death.

 

[gluadys]

As I am sure I have explained before, I believe that we assign certain parts of scripture to the allegorical when it does not fit into our particular brand of theology, to create a belief that we are comfortable with.

Ok, this takes me a little bit closer to seeing where you are coming from.

My first difficulty is with the word "assign". As you use it here, it seems to be a synonym for "consign". And it also appears that in your view, to assign or consign a scripture to the category of allegory is equivalent to chucking it in the garbage.

This to me, is quite a confusion of meaning.

So let me start with this:

ALL TEXTS have a LITERAL meaning. And I don't mean just scriptural texts. Everything you read or write has a literal meaning i.e. a "common sense" meaning.

You can never say that a text does not have a literal meaning. So you can never assign/consign a text to the category of allegory.

What you can do is say that a text has only a literal meaning or that over and above the literal meaning it has other meanings. We use various terms to refer to these other meanings: image, symbol, allegory, analogy, metaphor, figure, type, trope, etc. Some of these overlap in meaning; none of them are exactly identical in meaning. The only umbrella-term that includes them all is the negative "non-literal".

A text can have almost as many non-literal meanings of various sorts as the imagination can devise.

But none of them eradicate the literal meaning. The literal reading is always there. And we can always refer back to it.

The real question is not: is the text literal or not? It is always at least literal. The real question is what is the value of the literal reading vis-a-vis other readings.

When Jesus spoke in parables, he obviously saw the spiritual meaning as much more important than the literal meaning. He also reproached the Pharisees for an overly-literal application of the law when they should have paid more attention to the spirit of the law. So we see that in some cases, a focus on the literal meaning can actually lead us astray.

Now you assume that in many cases, interpreters move away from a literal meaning because they are uncomfortable with it. And I infer that you see this as a bad move, one that does not honour inspired scripture.

Yet, we also have, in scripture itself, a rebuke of those who limit themselves to a literal meaning.

So, is it a given that the literal meaning is always the most valuable meaning?

I still think we are only scratching at the surface here. As cosmoJ says we have a myriad versions of "literal" translations and interpretations and no common understanding even of what "literal" means.

As I see it, certain Christian factions have made a fetish of the word "literal". They have assigned it a very high positive value. So it is important to them to present their interpretation as "literal" in order to say it is "valuable" or "correct".

If they were more modest in their understanding of the very term "literal" they would not be obsessed with the need to proclaim every interpretation under the sun as "literal".

We could all agree on the literal meaning of the text and then go on to determine what we do with that meaning.

So those scriptures that fit our belief become literal e.g. Christ was slain for our sins. Belief in Adam however does not easily fit into a secular or Christian understanding of evolution, therefore it must be allegorical. No.

My mind set is not that all the allegory in the Bible is wrong, however I am now comfortable that Creation does not need to be allegorical but literal.

I am inferring a lot of what "literal" means to you from this paragraph, so I could be way off base and do feel free to correct me.

What comes out of this to me is that "literal" has taken on a lot of connotations that do not belong to it by dictionary definition.

So, for example, when you refer to "Christ was slain for our sins" as "literal", I think the appropriate word is "true".

Of course sometimes a literal interpretation is also a true interpretation, but sometimes a literal interpretation is a false interpretation. (As when the disciples interpreted Jesus' warning about the yeast of the Pharisees in terms of not having any bread.)

So we should avoid equating "literal" with "true" as if it were always more true than another interpretation. The truth of the literal interpretation has to be established case by case.

Furthermore, even when we can say the literal statement is true, it may still be of less importance than what it implies as a symbol.

Another confusion I see is between an event and a text about the event. You speak of creation being "literal".

Now this can be understood in two ways.

1. Creation actually happened.
2. Creation is described in scripture the way it actually happened.

Every Christian would agree with the first meaning. So if this is what is meant by "literal" we have no problem.

But many would not agree with the second meaning. And this leads us into more confusion around the word "literal".

If, as I contend, every text has a literal meaning and every text has only one literal meaning, we should all be able to agree on what the literal meaning of the first creation account is.

As I see it, the YEC folk are almost correct about the literal meaning. It does present a story of the creation of the heavens and the earth in a sequence of six days followed by the seventh day of rest. Furthermore, we are to understand that literally, the days are ordinary (what we would call "solar") days.

The question is not what the literal meaning of the text is. The question is "How does this literal meaning relate to the actual event of creation?"

One option is that it is a concise description that agrees point-by-point with actual events which occurred at the time of creation. (With the addition that the time of creation was recent, this is the YEC viewpoint.)

At the opposite extreme is the belief that it does not concur in any way with the actual mechanics of creation. Creation is presented in a wholly imaginative framework for important theological purposes. One of those purposes is to establish God as the one and only Creator.

Note that this viewpoint does not deny point #1 above. It still takes creation to be a reality. But it divorces the text from that reality in the sense that the text does not concur with what physically happened. The purpose of the text is theological, not descriptive.

The third option is to agree that the text does not concur precisely with the reality of creation, but that the text and the reality can be linked analogically. The Day-Age thesis is an example of this.

I would see your thesis as another example of this third option.

To me, looking at these options helps sort out the correct meaning of "literal" and clarifies what the actual nature of the discussion is.

Note that under all three options, we all agree that creation was a real event. God did literally create the heavens and the earth. It is important to establish that. It is especially important for Christian fellowship to understand that those who reject the first option are NOT rejecting belief in God or belief in creation. They are only rejecting a specific understanding of the relationship between creation itself and a text about creation.

Secondly, under all three options, we agree on what the literal meaning of the text is. We do not get into any arguments about whether the days of Genesis are different from our days. The ordinary, common sense meaning of day is agreed to as the literal meaning.

Under the third option we may assert that these ordinary days symbolize or represent a much longer time period. Or (as Augustine did) assert that they represent a single instant laid out as days in the text for the convenience of human understanding. But we do not say that the literal meaning is anything other than an ordinary solar day.

So then, we can be clear that our discussion is not about the actuality of creation, nor about the truth of scripture, nor about its literal meaning, but about the way the literal meaning of the text links with history: as description, as allegory or as theology.

In all cases we accept its truth.

 

[CosmoJ]

I read your paper and I do like it. I sense a kindred spirit, which I think we can be and still disagree on some points at least in the seeking of some clarity and the will to try to be as consistent as possible to Scripture. I admire any honest attempt to resolve the 'enigma'. I do believe there is no point to a Second Adam if there was no first Adam, however, perhaps there is 'wiggle' room here as I'll explain. Let me outline several points (Here's hoping you have the fortitude)

1) The first problem, as I see it, is that there are not two creation accounts, there are actually three. The third is found at Sirach (Ecclesiaticus) 18:1 & Psalm 33:9. Both texts imply the the cosmos was created instantly, all at once. This I believe was the understanding of Augustine, although many church fathers also understood the word 'day' as literal. If one is going to give the 3rd account credence, one is going to have to admit to 'days' not happening over millions of years, but instantly, 'all at once'.
2) I agree, it is undeniable that evolution has happened. However, I think it is also undeniable that evoltionists have significantly oversold there case. Teilhard de Chardin comes to mind (the philosophy behind Vatican II). Research has shown that Teilhard probably planted the missing link (Piltdown Man) to perhaps advance his own theology. While I think it is perhaps possible to remain within Church doctrine and hold to Evolutionary Theory, one must also admit the evolution does seem to provide an easy pathway to occult theologies. (Nobody, however, is doctrinally perfect though) I don't think we can hold someone accountable who is just doing their best to understand the Word of God and reconcile it to the world we live in. While the Church has made its doctrinal mistakes, so has science. Einstein's Relativity is beginning to unravel and so might fall the Big Bang. All ancients believed in an aether, an underneath cosmic ordering that motivated the heaven and made knowledge possible. While Einstein purposely outmoded the aether, many modern physicists are re-thinking the theory. There have been no major advances ever based on the theory which is causing many to look back to prior physics based on Tesla. It's possible much of todays confusion unfolds from Newton's 2nd Law of Entropy which may soon fall. If all these more modern ideas were ideas packed into that original law, it may be only a matter of time before a more 'traditional' (less paradoxical) physics starts to take over. Ideas like evolution might then follow in suit and at least be confined to a more traditional understanding. When science blesses paradox as truth (the ancient 'two-fold truth, the basis of Islamic philosophy) it's no wonder chaos ensues.
3) The third problem is one of language transmission: by most accounts Moses probably lived around 1500 BC. Also, by most accounts, the written language developed around 1500-1200 BC. Indeed, some Jewish tradition has held that Moses actually invented the modern Aleph-Beth system from a hieroglyphic system – the command 'thou shall not use a graven image' was literally a command to not return to that system. Obviously, then, according to ancient tradition Moses would have had to translate an earlier account from a more 'symbolic' system, one where the intricacies of a more sophisticated system were not possible. Maybe we are 'over-reading' the account. Perhaps this even explains the legends of the constellations, not as astrological signs, but as mnemonic devices for prior wisdoms and traditions that could only be written down with the invention of paper. (NB - I also believe that the early language was significantly more Greek-like than we might give it credit. Sanhedrin documents from the time of Daniel indicate that whatever ancient Hebrew was was either lost at that time or invented after that time. See my book Time of the Christ)
4) George Stanley Faber tried to solve the enigma an entirely different way (The Origin of Pagan Idolatry). I believe he was a creationist. In his view everything up the flood was to be understood metaphysically as a yet un-rediscovered wisdom or a literal episode happening in a different reality that we can know nothing more about. Noah (Noe) actually meant 'the man who knows/understands and was actually also Adam. (a 4th creation account, then) This view has its problems too, but it is not entirely without merit. Most Gnosticism was based on the reading into scripture Platonic/Hermetic Doctrine - that the visible world is a barbarian an ought not exist. Most of this at the time was believed to have come form a lost Wisdom of Enoch (the Corpus Hermeticum and other occult texts - Faber was laudably trying to insulate Christianity from these texts. This is what caused me seek a more Aristotelian evidence in scripture. Aristotle hinges on a Tree of Porphyry style solution which might have its origin with Moses.

This is just a beginning. But I do believe there is an honest answer here if we struggle with the enigma. Perhaps worse than ascribing to the wrong doctrine, though, is expecting people to will themselves to believe a doctrine that is just not in their hearts to do so - and then us hanging that doctrine out as a condition of salvation. It's just not up to us and condemning another for that is a worse sin than false belief. I think we are meant to struggle with these things. A faith worth dieing for was not necessarily one of mere self-affirmation.

 

[cleminson]

Ok, this takes me a little bit closer to seeing where you are coming from.

My first difficulty is with the word "assign". As you use it here, it seems to be a synonym for "consign". And it also appears that in your view, to assign or consign a scripture to the category of allegory is equivalent to chucking it in the garbage.

This to me, is quite a confusion of meaning.

So let me start with this:

ALL TEXTS have a LITERAL meaning. And I don't mean just scriptural texts. Everything you read or write has a literal meaning i.e. a "common sense" meaning.

You can never say that a text does not have a literal meaning. So you can never assign/consign a text to the category of allegory.

What you can do is say that a text has only a literal meaning or that over and above the literal meaning it has other meanings. We use various terms to refer to these other meanings: image, symbol, allegory, analogy, metaphor, figure, type, trope, etc. Some of these overlap in meaning; none of them are exactly identical in meaning. The only umbrella-term that includes them all is the negative "non-literal".

A text can have almost as many non-literal meanings of various sorts as the imagination can devise.

But none of them eradicate the literal meaning. The literal reading is always there. And we can always refer back to it.

The real question is not: is the text literal or not? It is always at least literal. The real question is what is the value of the literal reading vis-a-vis other readings.

When Jesus spoke in parables, he obviously saw the spiritual meaning as much more important than the literal meaning. He also reproached the Pharisees for an overly-literal application of the law when they should have paid more attention to the spirit of the law. So we see that in some cases, a focus on the literal meaning can actually lead us astray.

Now you assume that in many cases, interpreters move away from a literal meaning because they are uncomfortable with it. And I infer that you see this as a bad move, one that does not honour inspired scripture.

Yet, we also have, in scripture itself, a rebuke of those who limit themselves to a literal meaning.

So, is it a given that the literal meaning is always the most valuable meaning?

I still think we are only scratching at the surface here. As cosmoJ says we have a myriad versions of "literal" translations and interpretations and no common understanding even of what "literal" means.

As I see it, certain Christian factions have made a fetish of the word "literal". They have assigned it a very high positive value. So it is important to them to present their interpretation as "literal" in order to say it is "valuable" or "correct".

If they were more modest in their understanding of the very term "literal" they would not be obsessed with the need to proclaim every interpretation under the sun as "literal".

We could all agree on the literal meaning of the text and then go on to determine what we do with that meaning.



I am inferring a lot of what "literal" means to you from this paragraph, so I could be way off base and do feel free to correct me.

What comes out of this to me is that "literal" has taken on a lot of connotations that do not belong to it by dictionary definition.

So, for example, when you refer to "Christ was slain for our sins" as "literal", I think the appropriate word is "true".

Of course sometimes a literal interpretation is also a true interpretation, but sometimes a literal interpretation is a false interpretation. (As when the disciples interpreted Jesus' warning about the yeast of the Pharisees in terms of not having any bread.)

So we should avoid equating "literal" with "true" as if it were always more true than another interpretation. The truth of the literal interpretation has to be established case by case.

Furthermore, even when we can say the literal statement is true, it may still be of less importance than what it implies as a symbol.

Another confusion I see is between an event and a text about the event. You speak of creation being "literal".

Now this can be understood in two ways.

1. Creation actually happened.
2. Creation is described in scripture the way it actually happened.

Every Christian would agree with the first meaning. So if this is what is meant by "literal" we have no problem.

But many would not agree with the second meaning. And this leads us into more confusion around the word "literal".

If, as I contend, every text has a literal meaning and every text has only one literal meaning, we should all be able to agree on what the literal meaning of the first creation account is.

As I see it, the YEC folk are almost correct about the literal meaning. It does present a story of the creation of the heavens and the earth in a sequence of six days followed by the seventh day of rest. Furthermore, we are to understand that literally, the days are ordinary (what we would call "solar") days.

The question is not what the literal meaning of the text is. The question is "How does this literal meaning relate to the actual event of creation?"

One option is that it is a concise description that agrees point-by-point with actual events which occurred at the time of creation. (With the addition that the time of creation was recent, this is the YEC viewpoint.)

At the opposite extreme is the belief that it does not concur in any way with the actual mechanics of creation. Creation is presented in a wholly imaginative framework for important theological purposes. One of those purposes is to establish God as the one and only Creator.

Note that this viewpoint does not deny point #1 above. It still takes creation to be a reality. But it divorces the text from that reality in the sense that the text does not concur with what physically happened. The purpose of the text is theological, not descriptive.

The third option is to agree that the text does not concur precisely with the reality of creation, but that the text and the reality can be linked analogically. The Day-Age thesis is an example of this.

I would see your thesis as another example of this third option.

To me, looking at these options helps sort out the correct meaning of "literal" and clarifies what the actual nature of the discussion is.

Note that under all three options, we all agree that creation was a real event. God did literally create the heavens and the earth. It is important to establish that. It is especially important for Christian fellowship to understand that those who reject the first option are NOT rejecting belief in God or belief in creation. They are only rejecting a specific understanding of the relationship between creation itself and a text about creation.

Secondly, under all three options, we agree on what the literal meaning of the text is. We do not get into any arguments about whether the days of Genesis are different from our days. The ordinary, common sense meaning of day is agreed to as the literal meaning.

Under the third option we may assert that these ordinary days symbolize or represent a much longer time period. Or (as Augustine did) assert that they represent a single instant laid out as days in the text for the convenience of human understanding. But we do not say that the literal meaning is anything other than an ordinary solar day.

So then, we can be clear that our discussion is not about the actuality of creation, nor about the truth of scripture, nor about its literal meaning, but about the way the literal meaning of the text links with history: as description, as allegory or as theology.

In all cases we accept its truth.

I agree with every thing you have written in your reply. My theory has to find a way of reaching both TE,s and C,s, amongst whom there are many confused Christians regarding the the Creation Scriptures. I believe my theory "tidies up" this "secret confussion". I can visualise a real person called Adam telling his family how he saw God create this Universe. From Adam's spiritual home in Eden, he saw God creating (over about 3.4 billion years), plants, reptiles, birds, animals and finally mankind. He would also have told them how he disobeyed God and how he died to that Paradise and was bannished to this Planet to cope with its weeds, disease, death and decay. We love our Earth anyway and find it beautiful and as God comanded us, we are slowly taming it.

 

[cleminson]

I read your paper and I do like it. I sense a kindred spirit, which I think we can be and still disagree on some points at least in the seeking of some clarity and the will to try to be as consistent as possible to Scripture. I admire any honest attempt to resolve the 'enigma'. I do believe there is no point to a Second Adam if there was no first Adam, however, perhaps there is 'wiggle' room here as I'll explain. Let me outline several points (Here's hoping you have the fortitude)

I presume from this statement that you are or were once of the Jewish persuasion and if so I value your input greatly. However, as you know, Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the second Adam, the Scriptures to confirm this are found in our New Testament, Romans 5:17-19 where it says, ”For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous”. And in 1Corinthians 15:22, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”.And in 1Corinthians 15:45 “So also it is written, the first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit”. It’s a Christian thing and the whole point of being a Christian.

1) The first problem, as I see it, is that there are not two creation accounts, there are actually three. The third is found at Sirach (Ecclesiaticus) 18:1 & Psalm 33:9. Both texts imply the the cosmos was created instantly, all at once. This I believe was the understanding of Augustine, although many church fathers also understood the word 'day' as literal. If one is going to give the 3rd account credence, one is going to have to admit to 'days' not happening over millions of years, but instantly, 'all at once'.

I have found the Psalms quote, Psalm 33:9 “For he spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” However I have just read through the whole of Ecclesiastes trying to find Ecc. 18:1 but because the Christian Bibles only go to Chapter 12, to try to find a verse that supports your theory of a third creation, I must say that I could not find it. However, I have not read them for quite some time and was thoroughly blessed reading them again.
Returning to Psalms 33:9, all I see this verse confirming is that God did speak Creation into being, and nothing could stop His Creative power, “it was done”, and nothing could stand against it. The fact that it took as long as God wanted it to happen is certain and our scientists are trying to find out just how long it pleasured God to take. I see nothing wrong in them investigating God’s wonderful creations, both spiritual and physical. Ecc 3:11, “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end”. Yet I did have a giggle when I read Ecc. 8:17 in the Jewish Publication Society Bible, “then I beheld all the work of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun; because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further, though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it”. An eye opener to us TE’s

2) I agree, it is undeniable that evolution has happened. However, I think it is also undeniable that evoltionists have significantly oversold there case. Teilhard de Chardin comes to mind (the philosophy behind Vatican II). Research has shown that Teilhard probably planted the missing link (Piltdown Man) to perhaps advance his own theology. While I think it is perhaps possible to remain within Church doctrine and hold to Evolutionary Theory, one must also admit the evolution does seem to provide an easy pathway to occult theologies. (Nobody, however, is doctrinally perfect though) I don't think we can hold someone accountable who is just doing their best to understand the Word of God and reconcile it to the world we live in. While the Church has made its doctrinal mistakes, so has science. Einstein's Relativity is beginning to unravel and so might fall the Big Bang. All ancients believed in an aether, an underneath cosmic ordering that motivated the heaven and made knowledge possible. While Einstein purposely outmoded the aether, many modern physicists are re-thinking the theory. There have been no major advances ever based on the theory which is causing many to look back to prior physics based on Tesla. It's possible much of todays confusion unfolds from Newton's 2nd Law of Entropy which may soon fall. If all these more modern ideas were ideas packed into that original law, it may be only a matter of time before a more 'traditional' (less paradoxical) physics starts to take over. Ideas like evolution might then follow in suit and at least be confined to a more traditional understanding. When science blesses paradox as truth (the ancient 'two-fold truth, the basis of Islamic philosophy) it's no wonder chaos ensues.

In answer to this part of your question, I think that we should be careful in saying that the evolutionary theory could lead to the occult theologies. Any science from math to geology can do that in a perverted mind. Besides the occult, witchcraft and all other so called satanic goings on are only works of the flesh and should not frighten an understanding Christian, Galatians 5:19- 22, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness”. Devils and demons are locked away and are powerless except for the power that people give them.

3) The third problem is one of language transmission: by most accounts Moses probably lived around 1500 BC. Also, by most accounts, the written language developed around 1500-1200 BC. Indeed, some Jewish tradition has held that Moses actually invented the modern Aleph-Beth system from a hieroglyphic system – the command 'thou shall not use a graven image' was literally a command to not return to that system. Obviously, then, according to ancient tradition Moses would have had to translate an earlier account from a more 'symbolic' system, one where the intricacies of a more sophisticated system were not possible. Maybe we are 'over-reading' the account. Perhaps this even explains the legends of the constellations, not as astrological signs, but as mnemonic devices for prior wisdoms and traditions that could only be written down with the invention of paper. (NB - I also believe that the early language was significantly more Greek-like than we might give it credit. Sanhedrin documents from the time of Daniel indicate that whatever ancient Hebrew was was either lost at that time or invented after that time. See my book Time of the Christ)

I respect all the points that you made in this part however, I am not an evolutionary scientist, I read what the papers say with interest, I watch what television has to say about it all with interest, and probably know a bit more than most of the public do but my hobby is trout fly fishing, in that I am a teacher and probably an expert. I wrote this paper from a “creationist with a problem” point of view, in solving that problem I seem to have become an OE creationist who believes in some sort of God driven evolution. I am not an evolutionist however because I cannot accept that genetic change happened because of a mutative process.

4) George Stanley Faber tried to solve the enigma an entirely different way (The Origin of Pagan Idolatry). I believe he was a creationist. In his view everything up the flood was to be understood metaphysically as a yet un-rediscovered wisdom or a literal episode happening in a different reality that we can know nothing more about. Noah (Noe) actually meant 'the man who knows/understands and was actually also Adam. (a 4th creation account, then) This view has its problems too, but it is not entirely without merit. Most Gnosticism was based on the reading into scripture Platonic/Hermetic Doctrine - that the visible world is a barbarian an ought not exist. Most of this at the time was believed to have come form a lost Wisdom of Enoch (the Corpus Hermeticum and other occult texts - Faber was laudably trying to insulate Christianity from these texts. This is what caused me seek a more Aristotelian evidence in scripture. Aristotle hinges on a Tree of Porphyry style solution which might have its origin with Moses.

I cannot comment on this because I have not studied this area but a friend of mine asked if it were possible that the ancient Greek Gods could have been the sinful sons of God I describe pre- flood. My answer was possibly but it is unimportant to me, so I will not hang my hat on that one.

This is just a beginning. But I do believe there is an honest answer here if we struggle with the enigma. Perhaps worse than ascribing to the wrong doctrine, though, is expecting people to will themselves to believe a doctrine that is just not in their hearts to do so - and then us hanging that doctrine out as a condition of salvation. It's just not up to us and condemning another for that is a worse sin than false belief. I think we are meant to struggle with these things. A faith worth dieing for was not necessarily one of mere self-affirmation.

I have strong views on this one: firstly if Satan had not rebelled, God would probably not have needed to create matter. But as we Christians are told that Christ was slain before the creation of matter, sometime before our world came into being, Jesus was slain by God then. That is a mystery but one I am very happy to accept on face value. It is possible that the by product of matter and Spirit to create the part physical and spiritual place that was Satan’s prison and later to become the place where God created the Garden of Eden, was also responsible of producing the Mayim that became the life seed for our Universe, i.e. our Earth is but an imperfect image of Eden??!!

Sorry guys I seem to have put my replies in the wrong place, I have just made them bold I hope you follow them.

 

[GenemZ]

I have strong views on this one: firstly if Satan had not rebelled, God would probably not have needed to create matter.

Satan rebelled during the time there was created matter.

Isaiah 14:12-15 (New American Standard Bible)
"How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
"But you said in your heart,
'I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.
'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.'
"Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol,
To the recesses of the pit."
​

Just as we have a concept of nations in this current creation? There were types of nations existing in the prior. How they were set up it does not say.

Yet, we do see mentioned physical manifestations definitely existing at the moment of Satan's fall.

But as we Christians are told that Christ was slain before the creation of matter, sometime before our world came into being, Jesus was slain by God then.

Jesus was slain (in God's mind) before the foundations of this present world, because God knew he would have to allow for the fall of Adam.

This was necessitated by the need for God to have a means to teach the angels (who were innocent) as to why God was forced in his holiness to condemn their beloved Lucifer and his angels.

This will need to be elaborated upon, but this post is only to reveal to you there are reasons for such a thing to happen.


Grace and peace, GeneZ



.

 

[cleminson]

Satan rebelled during the time there was created matter.
Isaiah 14:12-15 (New American Standard Bible)

"How you have fallen from heaven,​

​

O star of the morning, son of the dawn!​

​

You have been cut down to the earth,​

​

You who have weakened the nations! ​

​

"But you said in your heart,​

​

'I will ascend to heaven;​

​

I will raise my throne above the stars of God,​

​

And I will sit on the mount of assembly​

​

In the recesses of the north. ​

​

'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;​

​

I will make myself like the Most High.' ​

​

"Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol,​

​

To the recesses of the pit." ​

​

Just as we have a concept of nations in this current creation? There were types of nations existing in the prior. How they were set up it does not say.

Yet, we do see mentioned physical manifestations definitely existing at the moment of Satan's fall.

Jesus was slain (in God's mind) before the foundations of this present world, because God knew he would have to allow for the fall of Adam.

This was necessitated by the need for God to have a means to teach the angels (who were innocent) as to why God was forced in his holiness to condemn their beloved Lucifer and his angels.

This will need to be elaborated upon, but this post is only to reveal to you there are reasons for such a thing to happen.


Grace and peace, GeneZ



.

Hi GeneZ. Thanks for the reply. I thought like you do for a long time, about the timing of Satan's fall. But in the Macro theology of my theory The Genesis Enigma, I believe that the verse you quote from in Issiah 14 "you have been cut down to the earth", means just that. God used matter to bind Satan and his fallen angels from ever entering God's purely spiritual world. This was why He created matter. Have you read my rather long paper, it explains it all there.

I agree with you that Jesus was slain before the foundations of earth because He knew that Adam would sin but I firmly believe that Satan's rebellion happened before matter was created. Every verse I have found supports this theory,including Issiah 14. If you can find a verse that does not please let me know.