Demonstrate the Allegory

[SeventyOne]

The thought by evolutionists here seems to be that the creation account in Genesis is an allegory, not literal.

I don't see it. Would an evolutionist be able to lay out the current evolutionary thought process side-by-side with the corresponding Genesis text, demonstrating what it seems to some to be the obvious connection between the two from start to finish?

 

[Speedwell]

The thought by evolutionists here seems to be that the creation account in Genesis is an allegory, not literal.

I don't see it. Would an evolutionist be able to lay out the current evolutionary thought process side-by-side with the corresponding Genesis text, demonstrating what it seems to some to be the obvious connection between the two from start to finish?

In the first place, if you expect to get anywhere with this you are going to have to back down on the idea that this all has to do with evolution, or trying to "fit" evolution into Genesis. I won't speak for Archivist, but for my part if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow it wouldn't change my view of Genesis one bit. I certainly would not begin to see it as a literal and inerrant history, a view which I reject based on the literary character of the stories themselves--nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Emli]

I honestly don't see why evolution would not fit into Genesis as it is. It really is not all that descriptive. You don't have to twist it or change it one bit, or read it metaphorically, for it to make sense.

 

[JacksBratt]

In the first place, if you expect to get anywhere with this you are going to have to back down on the idea that this all has to do with evolution, or trying to "fit" evolution into Genesis. I won't speak for Archivist, but for my part if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow it wouldn't change my view of Genesis one bit. I certainly would not begin to see it as a literal and inerrant history, a view which I reject based on the literary character of the stories themselves--nothing to do with evolution.

I am curious, if Genesis is not literal and evolution was dissproven, what other sequence of events would you suggest resulted in the world we have today?

 

[Speedwell]

I am curious, if Genesis is not literal and evolution was dissproven, what other sequence of events would you suggest resulted in the world we have today?

The same as now, with the exception that without the biological theory of evolution we would not have an explanation for the diversity of life. If you mean "evolution" in the creationist sense of a complete theory of origins, then we wouldn't have one.

 

[JacksBratt]

The same as now, with the exception that without the biological theory of evolution we would not have an explanation for the diversity of life. If you mean "evolution" in the creationist sense of a complete theory of origins, then we wouldn't have one.

So, you would be stuck for an explanation of the diversity of life forms.

Well, you could easily side step it just like you do now as you have no explanation for life itself.

 

[Speedwell]

So, you would be stuck for an explanation of the diversity of life forms.

Well, you could easily side step it just like you do now as you have no explanation for life itself.

That's right; science doesn't know everything.

 

[SeventyOne]

In the first place, if you expect to get anywhere with this you are going to have to back down on the idea that this all has to do with evolution, or trying to "fit" evolution into Genesis. I won't speak for Archivist, but for my part if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow it wouldn't change my view of Genesis one bit. I certainly would not begin to see it as a literal and inerrant history, a view which I reject based on the literary character of the stories themselves--nothing to do with evolution.

This is specifically about those claiming Genesis is an allegory and God used evolution instead. Why would I back down from the main point of the thread?

 

[SeventyOne]

I honestly don't see why evolution would not fit into Genesis as it is. It really is not all that descriptive. You don't have to twist it or change it one bit, or read it metaphorically, for it to make sense.

Could you elaborate with some details?

 

[Emli]

Could you elaborate with some details?

I just think that the Bible doesn't really tell us any details about how God created us and animals, only the order of it, and that He formed man out of clay. That leaves a lot open to interpretation.
Right now I personally believe in theistic microevolution but not macroevolution, because it says that God created the animals according their own kind. But I would never dismiss any other theory.

 

[Speedwell]

This is specifically about those claiming Genesis is an allegory and God used evolution instead. Why would I back down from the main point of the thread?

I'll butt out then. I don't think "Genesis is an allegory." It is too complex a work for a single designation like that. And, of course, I regard the questions of whether the first two chapters of Genesis are literal history and whether evolution is a valid theory as not related in the way you suppose.

 

[SeventyOne]

I'll butt out then. I don't think "Genesis is an allegory." It is too complex a work for a single designation like that. And, of course, I regard the questions of whether the first two chapters of Genesis are literal history and whether evolution is a valid theory as not related in the way you suppose.

Since a common theme I've been told around here in the evolution/creation debate is that the Genesis creation account is just allegory, I'm just trying to find someone who will fill out the details of the allegory and make a point-by-point comparison with what they claim really happened instead.

It shouldn't be that hard unless claiming it as an allegory is really just an easy way to dismiss it completely and then substitute it with something else instead.

 

[Speedwell]

Since a common theme I've been told around here in the evolution/creation debate is that the Genesis creation account is just allegory, I'm just trying to find someone who will fill out the details of the allegory and make a point-by-point comparison with what they claim really happened instead.

It shouldn't be that hard unless claiming it as an allegory is really just an easy way to dismiss it completely and then substitute it with something else instead.

I'm not sure that is necessarily true that saying Genesis is allegorical requires it to be an allegory of the scientific conclusions about our origins. Even creationists regard the Garden story as having allegorical meaning--for example, Adam is taken to be a type of Christ, that is to say, an allegorical representation.

 

[SeventyOne]

I'm not sure that is necessarily true that saying Genesis is allegorical requires it to be an allegory of the scientific conclusions about our origins. Even creationists regard the Garden story as having allegorical meaning--for example, Adam is taken to be a type of Christ, that is to say, an allegorical representation.

So, the biblical account of our origins doesn't even have to be an accurate allegory of our assumed scientific origins? That would make it NOT an allegory, but a competing narrative.

Lot's of things have allegorical representation in the scriptures because God uses types and shadows to show us He's in charge. For example, the life of Joseph was so similar to the life of Jesus, by representation, it's almost scary, but that doesn't mean Joseph wasn't real. Just like saying Adam was a type of Christ as well, doesn't make him fictional.

I'm looking for those who claim it didn't happen as the scriptures say, such as Adam wasn't real, and explain the allegory, point by point. That is a statement I've heard over and over around here. I don't know why you seem to be wanting to drag it off topic.

If it doesn't apply to you, please move on.

 

[-57]

I honestly don't see why evolution would not fit into Genesis as it is. It really is not all that descriptive. You don't have to twist it or change it one bit, or read it metaphorically, for it to make sense.

You posted...."I honestly don't see why evolution would not fit into Genesis as it is."

Let me help you....In evolutionism male and females evolved together. In Genesis male was around prior to female. In Genesis the female was made from the males rib. How is that evolutionism?

 

[-57]

Since a common theme I've been told around here in the evolution/creation debate is that the Genesis creation account is just allegory, I'm just trying to find someone who will fill out the details of the allegory and make a point-by-point comparison with what they claim really happened instead.

It shouldn't be that hard unless claiming it as an allegory is really just an easy way to dismiss it completely and then substitute it with something else instead.

People debate the short and to the point parables in the NT all the time. Just image all the different "real" meanings of Genesis we can come up with.

Will you ever see a point by point explanation of the so-called parables of Genesis.....I've been doing this for a whilr and never have.

 

[-57]

I'm not sure that is necessarily true that saying Genesis is allegorical requires it to be an allegory of the scientific conclusions about our origins. Even creationists regard the Garden story as having allegorical meaning--for example, Adam is taken to be a type of Christ, that is to say, an allegorical representation.

People debate the short and to the point parables in the NT all the time. Just image all the different "real" meanings of Genesis we can come up with.

Will you ever see a point by point explanation of the so-called parables of Genesis.....I've been doing this for a whilr and never have.

I say a type of Christ isn't really an allegory...it's just that, a type of Christ. Secondly it is also explained in Romans 5 in a literal way.

 

[-57]

I've posted this on several threads over the years and never really got back an answer....

In a letter to Timothy from Paul, Paul instructed the women on how to act in church. 1st Tim 2:11-12.

In verse 13-14 Paul shows us his reason...and it's based upon the creation of man and women and the fall as presented in Genesis.

13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Why would Paul develope a rule based upon a parable?

 

[SeventyOne]

People debate the short and to the point parables in the NT all the time. Just image all the different "real" meanings of Genesis we can come up with.

Will you ever see a point by point explanation of the so-called parables of Genesis.....I've been doing this for a whilr and never have.

I don't expect anyone to actually sit down and go point by point because the claim that the creation account is all one big allegory isn't valid. However, I do hope at least someone honest out there who has parroted that line might have the light come on and start to question the evolutionary lies they've told they must believe all their lives and emerge from among the brainwashed.

 

[Archivist]

Since a common theme I've been told around here in the evolution/creation debate is that the Genesis creation account is just allegory, I'm just trying to find someone who will fill out the details of the allegory and make a point-by-point comparison with what they claim really happened instead.

It shouldn't be that hard unless claiming it as an allegory is really just an easy way to dismiss it completely and then substitute it with something else instead.

I've certainly never viewed the two Genesis creation accounts as allegories explaining evolution, so I couldn't make a point-by-point comparison.

Oh, and saying that "the Genesis creation account is just allegory" is like saying the story of the Good Samaritan is just a parable. The fact is that allegories and parables play very important roles in scripture.