Darwin Debunks himself? what did we miss?

[busterdog]

Wait - so are you saying that "odvious [sic] metaphors, poems, parables etc" aren't truth, or don't apply to us in some way?

(On a side note, I am having an honest problem parsing some of your posts. Can you please use proper grammar?)

I also think it's highly arrogant to assume that "proper Scriptural interpretation" is so easy, and that everyone who disagrees with you must be trying to twist Scripture to their own purposes. There have been many arguments in church history over what is literal and what isn't - one of the most high profile debates, of course, being over the Sacraments. It is, in fact, NOT always so obvious that "any functioning human being could interperate [sic] the difference."

And why is it ok to require that one abandon a conviction to avoid being arrogant? Is it because of your TE conviction? I would tend to think so. We do understand that there are intractable differences of opinion? Dont we all agree that it would be improper simple to take a biblical belief and say it doesnt really matter what you believe?

Hey yes, I believe Jesus rose on the third day. But, if you dont really believe that, well, let me avoid seeming arrogant by saying that its also ok to think he faked his own death. No. Uh uh. Give the man some credit for having a backbone.

 

[busterdog]

The trustworthiness of Scripture isn't what is at issue, vossler. It's the trustworthiness of YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture that is at issue (I don't know how often this needs to be repeated).
Neocreationists just love to accuse TEs of taking liberty with the Bible. But TEs don't make the single greatest mistake of equating their fallible, human interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself. It appears you do.

Dear Vossler:

Did God speak to you? Tell HIm to spare us all. Whatever He said is just your interpretation anyway. Assert nothing. Caveat everything. Remember, saying what you heard is true is the same as literally nailing the hands of TEs to the cross (ironically enough that seems to be treated as a literal crime).

OK?

As far as having a serious view of what God is speaking to you, remember, the following is always safer:

"Some lived in it and never felt it but he knew it was all nada y pues nada y nada ... Hail full of nada, nothing is with thee"

That gets less protest of inhumane persecution of the views of others, which of course is the highest of all standards.

 

[theFijian]

Hey yes, I believe Jesus rose on the third day. But, if you dont really believe that, well, let me avoid seeming arrogant by saying that its also ok to think he faked his own death. No. Uh uh. Give the man some credit for having a backbone.

This kind of thing keeps popping up, can someone point me towards any posts where the regular TEs around here has denied the literal physical resurrection of Christ?

 

[busterdog]

This kind of thing keeps popping up, can someone point me towards any posts where the regular TEs around here has denied the literal physical resurrection of Christ?

Deleted.

Go ahead, Misread at will.

 

[shernren]

I will make one reply and then I am out. It is getting too ugly too fast here again. And I am considering whether the above went beyond the personal standard I am trying to abide by. Though, the above is the truth and I am annoyed that my fellow YECs are being treated poorly in the thread. Bouke was too harsh in tone, but obviously some TEs think two wrongs make a right and it is ok to snipe, to be obtuse and contrary, and to be catty as long as the person deserves it.

Don't "some TEs" have names?

Hmmmm...... If everything can be metaphor, maybe that is all the resurrection is. What is your method to prove otherwise?

(emphases added)

You see where you are going wrong?

If I start by assuming that everything can be simply metaphor*, that does not imply that metaphor is all the resurrection is. It implies, rather, that metaphor can be all the resurrection is.

Don't you think that's a reasonable hypothesis to begin with, busterdog? Of course we then take that hypothesis out to the backyard and blast it to death with the copious ammunition that both internal and external evidence provide (and cremate the corpse and throw the dust out to sea for good measure). There are many checks for the story's authenticity. The same story is found in all four gospels, for one, and even though there are minor variations in details, reflecting each writer's separate emphases, the basic outline is still the same. (As any good historian is apt to do. More on that later.) Everything in the narratives is culturally recognizable and chronistically accurate (in response to, say, skeptics who don't believe crucifixions even happened around that time in Judea). Peope were willing to give their lives for this truth when they could easily have broken down and confessed if they were simply conspiratorial fiction writers. And so on.

Come to Genesis 1-11 and what do you get? Something that looks a whole lot different. There're repetitive structures, chiastic arrangements, puns galore, obviously symbolic elements (even for creationists) like good ol' Mr. Hiss, and generally a text far less like modern historiography than the Gospels are.

My beef is not so much with the conclusions that creationists reach as the means they use to reach them. To Bouke the story of Lazarus and the rich man was "obviously" a parable because, well, "obviously people don't speak up from Hell". Yes indeed, obviously trees do not clap their hands and the sun does not go round the earth, and obviously people do not rise up from the dead and people's shadows do not exorcise demons - Bouke's own argument would make much of the NT untenable as history. The closest weapon to a gunman's heart is his own pistol in the holster and creationists' hypotheses often backfire on them in strange (but not entirely unexpected) ways.

So often the literal historicism of Genesis is defended simply on the grounds that Genesis is in the Bible; any evolutionist suspicion otherwise is attributed not to the text itself or to reasoned consideration of it but ultimately to sheer impiety. It is almost as if the mere concept of non-literalism is like a burning match: one touch and the Bible goes up in flames, so don't let those heretics anywhere near us!

The point we make is simply that this is not the case. "Look, when you touch Psalms or parables or proverbs with non-literalism, everything looks fine. We aren't trying to prove that the whole Bible from cover to cover is non-literal but to get past that sheer paranoia of anything that smells of the non-literal at all. As such, everything can be simply metaphor - you got that right. Of course, there are going to be plenty of parts of the Bible which simply don't make sense when taken non-literally, and we can trust those parts to tell us for themselves (just as sensibly non-literal passages appear non-literal). What about Genesis? Ah, there we must touch the Bible very, very carefully, but we think that it can be simply metaphor, and let us show you why ... "


*This is, of course, an inaccurate use of the term "metaphor". But the word is so often mangled around here to simply mean "anything non-literal", and the true sense so rarely used, that I might as well go with the flow.

 

[Mallon]

Hmmmm...... If everything can be metaphor, maybe that is all the resurrection is. What is your method to prove otherwise?

Paul already addressed that issue: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor 15:14). The slippery slope you fear does not even exist!

Dear Vossler:

Did God speak to you? Tell HIm to spare us all. Whatever He said is just your interpretation anyway. Assert nothing. Caveat everything. Remember, saying what you heard is true is the same as literally nailing the hands of TEs to the cross (ironically enough that seems to be treated as a literal crime).

Oh, in that case, God told me I'm right. I guess that means I win.

Come on, bd. Am I supposed to find an appeal to personal revelation convincing? If I cited a dream last night in which God revealed to me the entire evolutionary history of life of earth, would you be convinced? That's just desperate.

The fact remains that we must each read the Bible through an interpretive lens. The message does not simply diffuse into our hearts and minds via osmosis, as some assume. I don't know why so many neocreationists have such a hard time admitting as much.

 

[Assyrian]

Hmmmm...... If everything can be metaphor, maybe that is all the resurrection is. What is your method to prove otherwise?

That has always been a bad piece of Creationist rhetoric, a false dichotomy that ignores the simple fact the bible is full of metaphor, whether people think metaphor threatens the resurrection or not. Clearly God did not think it was an issue or he would not have inspired so much metaphor in the first place. I am not sure why you would want to defend such an ugly and vacuous argument.

I think an easier example of interpretive difficulty is the statement "This is my blood." This is an interpretive difficulty that I at least have admitted.

So, if there are a small handful of difficulties, then must I concede everything? You seem to think so. It is certainly to your advantage in such a debate -- obviously that is not a method for real truth to emerge, but just a method of self-seeking. And yet one could not imagine a normal, educated interchange in which such a demand of an opponent would be the rule or the norm. It is an ungracious approach and doesnt betray much education, though we know from other exchanges that a very considerable education is in evidence.

But it is not a case of some difficulties in an interpretation is it? We are not arguing about the eucharist. This is a claim about how God speak in his word: If the bible isn't always literal how can anyone be saved? How do we even know Christ is risen?
Though it is regularly used by Creationists, of course the argument falls apart as soon as anyone touches it.

We get to the next line of defence:
Bible TELLS you when it is using metaphor, parables.
When a metaphor is used in the Bible it is clearly stated.

That falls apart too with a few examples.

You take it further, though busterdog: We should be able to analyse passages and see when they are figurative. That is better but you are in TE territory here. We analyse Genesis and say it is figurative. Also you are out of the territory that says scripture speaks clearly and rely on identifying metaphor in scripture through our own God given understanding and the indwelling Holy spirit. All good TE stuff that. Though it also answers your question about the resurrection.

But even here your claim does not hold up. You think we can always analyse scripture and tell clearly when it is figurative. Well obviously not. There are passages the church does not agree on, like the Eucharist. This is a passage that was taken literally throughout church history until the reformation came along and some churches said it was figurative. The geocentric passages were always taken literally until Copernicus showed us that interpretation was simply wrong. Throughout the same period in church history, the first one and a half millennia, there was no agreement over Genesis begin literal, with some of the greatest minds in the church like Augustine and Aquinas thinking the Genesis days were clearly figurative. There is not agreement today either.

So where does this leave you claim. Is this simply a internal difficulty in an interpretation? No it is a claim that scripture is always clear. It clearly isn't.

But, I digress. If you demand absolutely rigid consistency in which a struggle is presumed to be concession, prove that the crucifixion and resurrection are not just clever fables. After all, Jesus says, "Take up your cross and follow me." Jesus doesnt really think there is a wooden cross you must physically carry. Isnt that right? So, be rigidly and uncompromisingly consistent.

Lets see where that goes.

I will make one reply and then I am out. It is getting too ugly too fast here again. And I am considering whether the above went beyond the personal standard I am trying to abide by. Though, the above is the truth and I am annoyed that my fellow YECs are being treated poorly in the thread. Bouke was too harsh in tone, but obviously some TEs think two wrongs make a right and it is ok to snipe, to be obtuse and contrary, and to be catty as long as the person deserves it.

Although you want to paint us as the ones demand absolutely rigid consistency, which side is the one saying the bible is always literal, or the bible always tells you when it uses a metaphor, Which side claims that to deny this is means we cannot know how to be saved and questions the very resurrection? All we are doing is showing how these claims are wrong and misunderstand how scripture speaks to us.

Of course Creationist have to make these claims, they have to claim it is absolutely clear Genesis is literal, because once you realise there is a even a possibility it is metaphorical, just like with geocentrism, it make no sense to cling to an interpretation science has shown is simply wrong.

 

[Melethiel]

And why is it ok to require that one abandon a conviction to avoid being arrogant? Is it because of your TE conviction? I would tend to think so. We do understand that there are intractable differences of opinion? Dont we all agree that it would be improper simple to take a biblical belief and say it doesnt really matter what you believe?

Hey yes, I believe Jesus rose on the third day. But, if you dont really believe that, well, let me avoid seeming arrogant by saying that its also ok to think he faked his own death. No. Uh uh. Give the man some credit for having a backbone.

Most certainly not! I wouldn't want anyone to compromise their convictions. Let me clarify myself, and I'll use myself as the example here to avoid pointing fingers. I was speaking more to the assertions that others MUST just be trying to "twist Scripture to their own purposes." For example, I have a strong conviction in the efficacy of the Sacraments, the truth of the Nicene Creed, the doctrine of election, etc. In an argument, I would certainly not back down from those core convictions. However, I wouldn't automatically assume that my opponent is seeing the obvious truth and just choosing to ignore it because they don't like it. They may be, or they may not, but that is not an assumption I can make.

Does that clarify my post?

 

[busterdog]

Paul already addressed that issue: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor 15:14). The slippery slope you fear does not even exist!
.

Not at all. What Paul meant was that if Christ had not really risen in a very important and serious way (symbolically, or virtually, as in the Church rising, not Jesus resuscitating) your faith would be in vain. My Dad paid a lot of for me to learn that in College.

 

[busterdog]

Most certainly not! I wouldn't want anyone to compromise their convictions. Let me clarify myself, and I'll use myself as the example here to avoid pointing fingers. I was speaking more to the assertions that others MUST just be trying to "twist Scripture to their own purposes." For example, I have a strong conviction in the efficacy of the Sacraments, the truth of the Nicene Creed, the doctrine of election, etc. In an argument, I would certainly not back down from those core convictions. However, I wouldn't automatically assume that my opponent is seeing the obvious truth and just choosing to ignore it because they don't like it. They may be, or they may not, but that is not an assumption I can make.

Does that clarify my post?

It does so graciously. Thank you.

 

[vossler]

Dear Vossler:

Did God speak to you? Tell HIm to spare us all. Whatever He said is just your interpretation anyway. Assert nothing. Caveat everything.

No God doesn't speak to anyone, at least not directly, unless of course it is through science. Science is, of course, God's modern language tool where He speaks the clearest and loudest. When He does, this then permits the use of any metaphoric/figurative interpretation of Scripture in order to support the science (which of course is always the Truth). Scientific findings that support the "theory" become a revelation while those that counter the theory become an anathema which of course should be viciously attacked, as any and all anathema deserve to be. So whatever you do, don't ever claim that absolute truth exists outside of what science permits. That alone could put you up before the firing squad.

So to better state this; assert nothing outside of what "science" supports and once it is supported caveat everything to adapt it to the good book.

As far as having a serious view of what God is speaking to you, remember, the following is always safer:

"Some lived in it and never felt it but he knew it was all nada y pues nada y nada ... Hail full of nada, nothing is with thee"

That gets less protest of inhumane persecution of the views of others, which of course is the highest of all standards.

 

[Assyrian]

Not at all. What Paul meant was that if Christ had not really risen in a very important and serious way (symbolically, or virtually, as in the Church rising, not Jesus resuscitating) your faith would be in vain. My Dad paid a lot of for me to learn that in College.

So what were the people preaching that Paul was arguing against? 1Cor 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

Can someone who is preaching a symbolic resurrection really argue against those who say there is no resurrection? If you believe Adam and Eve are figurative would you really have an issue with someone who says there actually was no Adam and Eve?

1Cor 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. A symbolic resurrection still leaves the dead as dead as no resurrection. Why was Paul arguing against that?

 

[Mallon]

Not at all. What Paul meant was that if Christ had not really risen in a very important and serious way (symbolically, or virtually, as in the Church rising, not Jesus resuscitating) your faith would be in vain. My Dad paid a lot of for me to learn that in College.

Lucky duck. I had to pay my own way through university.

In all seriousness, though, I'd like you see you defend that position if you think you can. I think Assyrian has already shown it to be untenable. As shernren said, everything CAN be symbolic or metaphorical, but not everything IS. The onus would be on you to make the case that the resurrection is a metaphor. Simply saying it is doesn't make it so. You would have to show us.

 

[theFijian]

Deleted.

Go ahead, Misread at will.

Why did you delete it? What did I misread?

 

[shernren]

Often times, a person being arrogant doesn't realize they are. They just are and then the back it up saying they aren't. You've made an excellent example here.

Also, your inference that creationists do think so highly - so much so that you have to call it (in capitals no less) "Grand Infallible Interpretation" - is a direct insult, to say the least.

Arrogance, Elitism, and Inferring something about someone different than you, without the courage to come right out and say it.

I can sum that up in one word, Coward.

Except, hmm, I actually did come right out and say it. On these forums. Where creationists not only read but actually answer. (Except bouke who's fallen strangely silent. )

I mean, we broach the topic of non-literalism and busterdog immediately asks "gee gee maybe the resurrection is all metaphor too!" That strikes me as precisely the kind of knee-jerk "if you're disagreeing with me, the chances are you've got something fundamentally wrong" defensiveness I was trying to describe.

I may have harsh things to say about the way creationists interpret the Bible, but I'll make no judgments of character and I'll hope you can do the same.

 

[Critias]

Except, hmm, I actually did come right out and say it. On these forums. Where creationists not only read but actually answer. (Except bouke who's fallen strangely silent. )

I mean, we broach the topic of non-literalism and busterdog immediately asks "gee gee maybe the resurrection is all metaphor too!" That strikes me as precisely the kind of knee-jerk "if you're disagreeing with me, the chances are you've got something fundamentally wrong" defensiveness I was trying to describe.

I may have harsh things to say about the way creationists interpret the Bible, but I'll make no judgments of character and I'll hope you can do the same.

I'd contend that we can actually understand the character of the person posting by how they state their positions. Therefore, we can make comments about one's character that is being shown.

Whether or not that is your actual character or the one you've made up for these online discussions doesn't matter, here in this environment.

So, my "judgement" of your character wasn't in how you "interpret" like yours was, but rather that you couldn't actually state what you were thinking in your post about those who understand the Bible differently than you.

Also, I think you're confusing the word judgement here as well, as if I am judging you, which I am not. I am judging how you present yourself here, which may or may not be who you actually are. So, I am judging your statements that you are making in your post.

I could also call you out on being derogatory, by calling others who don't read as you as being "Grand Infallible Interpreters".

Your arguments can easily be reversed against your position, because in essence, both sides are saying their interpretations are correct and the other side is wrong.

<staff edit>

 

[Bouke285]

Then this must be just a story too!

The king said to her, "Don't be afraid. What do you see?"
The woman said, "I see a spirit coming up out of the ground."
"What does he look like?" he asked.
"An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said.
Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"
"I am in great distress," Saul said. "The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do."
(1 Samuel 28:13-15 NIV)

My, my, someone twice as liberal as me!

It gets better:

The grave below is all astir
to meet you at your coming;
it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you--
all those who were leaders in the world;
it makes them rise from their thrones--
all those who were kings over the nations.
They will all respond,
they will say to you,
"You also have become weak, as we are;
you have become like us."
All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.
How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.
(Isaiah 14:9-15 NIV)

This is obviously just a story too, right? Unfortunately, in traditional Christian interpretation (which I don't actually think to be very right in this case) this passage describes nothing less than Lucifer's fall from heaven. So that didn't happen either?

[all emphases added]

See the peril of jumping to conclusions?

(thanks Bouke, I can't remember the last time anybody actually made it this easy for me. ^^)

Does it say Hell anywhere in this chunk scripture? No, I don't know where it is in scripture, but it talks about what happened to beings who have died before Jesus payed for our sins, before they could go to Heaven or Hell. So your argument doesn't really work here, sorry.

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt. 12:40).


"Because You will not leave my soul in Hades, or allow Your Holy One to see decay" (Acts 2:27).
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" (Eph. 4:8-9).

There is more scripture that would relate more to this topic, but I don't know where it is off hand.

(Right back at ya Shernren )

 

[shernren]

Does it say Hell anywhere in this chunk scripture? No, I don't know where it is in scripture, but it talks about what happened to beings who have died before Jesus payed for our sins, before they could go to Heaven or Hell. So your argument doesn't really work here, sorry.

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt. 12:40).


"Because You will not leave my soul in Hades, or allow Your Holy One to see decay" (Acts 2:27).
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" (Eph. 4:8-9).

There is more scripture that would relate more to this topic, but I don't know where it is off hand.

(Right back at ya Shernren )

Well, I do.

Remember that Ephesians quote? Well, here's what Peter had to say about it:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.
(1 Peter 3:18-20 NIV)

The Greek word for "prison" (innocuous as the NIV has it) is Tartarus, which is actually more of a hell than Hades (the word used in your NT quotations above for "hell" and in the Luke parable). "Hades" is the word used all throughout the NT for Hell, and you've done some of the legwork for yourself: the Acts quotation is a translation of a passage in the Psalms where the original used is Sheol, normally translated "grave".

And boy were the Psalmists and writers of the OT afraid of going to Sheol.

Then Moses said, "This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave (lit. Sheol), then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt." As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah's men and all their possessions. They went down alive into the grave (lit. Sheol), with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, "The earth is going to swallow us too!"
(Numbers 16:28-34 NIV)

Turn, O LORD, and deliver me;
save me because of your unfailing love.
No one remembers you when he is dead.
Who praises you from the grave (lit. Sheol)?
(Psalms 6:4-5 NIV)

Let me not be put to shame, O LORD,
for I have cried out to you;
but let the wicked be put to shame
and lie silent in the grave (lit. Sheol).
(Psalms 31:17 NIV)

And oh, irony of ironies:

The grave (lit. Sheol) below is all astir
to meet you at your coming;
it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you--
all those who were leaders in the world;
it makes them rise from their thrones--
all those who were kings over the nations.
(Isaiah 14:9 NIV)

Now if you were trying to argue that the "hell" of the parable is different from the "grave" that the OT and NT represent as an intermediate state you are going to have a hard time because both are represented by the same pair of words (Hebrew Sheol <-> Greek Hades). Furthermore, there is no indication in the parable that Lazarus and the rich man are not in an intermediate state: there is no mention of the Final Judgment, of the eschaton, of individual reward or condemnation, indeed even of God.

To come back to the original issue: I hope you can see that determining literalness and non-literalness is really not something that is just "obvious to any thinking person".

 

[busterdog]

So what were the people preaching that Paul was arguing against? 1Cor 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

Can someone who is preaching a symbolic resurrection really argue against those who say there is no resurrection? If you believe Adam and Eve are figurative would you really have an issue with someone who says there actually was no Adam and Eve?

1Cor 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. A symbolic resurrection still leaves the dead as dead as no resurrection. Why was Paul arguing against that?

Dead = living people who are not enlightened.
Resurrection = people come to believe the right things in life.
Heaven = fond memories of the departed.

And Paul, being an amalgamation of ideas being expressed at his time, was probably giving coded messages to support his gnostic views.

Such views work fine with your methods. There is no surface text.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXKFTzlBziI

 

[Assyrian]

Dead = living people who are not enlightened.
Resurrection = people come to believe the right things in life.
Heaven = fond memories of the departed.

And Paul, being an amalgamation of ideas being expressed at his time, was probably giving coded messages to support his gnostic views.

Paul was writing to other Gnostics in Corinth who were saying there is no such thing as enlightenment?

Such views work fine with your methods. There is no surface text.

Surface text says Jesus should have stepped on the snake.