Did You Compromise?

The Lady Kate · Mar 1, 2005

Calminian said:
Deceived who?? I'm not deceived. The early church wasn't deceived. I believe God's direct revelation. Only those who choose to look at the world through naturalistic glasses are deceived. How is that God's fault?? Don't you know scientific theories come and go?

I belive God's direct illustration too...even more than God's indirect revelation.

In the wine illustration (if you had a chance to check it out), the wine would have appeared old only to those who chose to believe naturalistic explanations first. To the rest, age wouldn't have even entered their minds.

So it's only a problem to those who choose to ask questions...

Maccie · Mar 2, 2005

So it's only a problem to those who choose to ask questions...

I hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you said this, Lady Kate!

God gave me a brain, and I'm sure he intends me to use it. And I, for one, am extremely glad that scientists through the ages have asked questions and that medicine, technology, biology, chemistry, etc. etc. have progressed over the last few thousand years.

And if the YEC's thought properly about it, they would be glad too. Otherwise plenty of you wouldn't be here now!!

vossler · Mar 2, 2005

Vance said:
I do not reject a young earth and intantaneous creation because a natural process would work. I reject them for two simple reasons. First, I have NO Scriptural or theological reason to accept them, since I had already concluded that the text was meant to be read figuratively.

Just trolling through here when I came upon this statement of yours (emphasis mine). How do you explain Genesis 1 when it says "days" and in no way even opens the door for it to mean anything else? I'm well aware of the argument that day, in some instances, could mean something other than a twenty four hour period. However, whenever it is used in conjunction with a number and/or the words evening and morning it always means a 24 hour period.

For that reason alone all talk of something else is automatically discounted. God is not the author of confusion and if He had meant it to mean something else He would have, not only opened that door, but blown it off its hinges. As it is, it's locked tight and double bolted.

Vance · Mar 2, 2005

vossler said:
Just trolling through here when I came upon this statement of yours (emphasis mine). How do you explain Genesis 1 when it says "days" and in no way even opens the door for it to mean anything else? I'm well aware of the argument that day, in some instances, could mean something other than a twenty four hour period. However, whenever it is used in conjunction with a number and/or the words evening and morning it always means a 24 hour period.

For that reason alone all talk of something else is automatically discounted. God is not the author of confusion and if He had meant it to mean something else He would have, not only opened that door, but blown it off its hinges. As it is, it's locked tight and double bolted.

I tend to agree that the word "yom" is meant to be read in the 24-hour sense, but this does not at all mean it was meant to be read as literally six 24-hour periods. The analogy I use most often for this is the poet who uses the symbol of a tree to represent a family. Now, he will never in the poem state that he wants us to view the tree as a family, but he still wants us to get that. But, he also wants us to read the word "tree" in his poem as a literal "leaf and branch" tree, not some other form of tree such as a "tree" computer file system. He wants us to hold to the proper definition of "tree" but he also wants us to realize that he is not actually writing a poem about a tree, but about a family.

If God is telling us about His Creative process and using the figurative literary motif of six days, then he wants us to hold to the six 24-hour period definition, but realize he is not using this phrase literally, but as a literary device.

And, you are right, God is not the author of confusion, but He has inspired a lot of writing that has resulted in a LOT of confusion and angst and disagreement and strife and even killing fellow Christians. Nothing new there. Even Peter said that much of Paul's writing was difficult to understand (to say the least!). I urge you to read my recent post on Augustine's approach to this issue. Also, consider that the Westminster Confession of Faith concedes that much of Scripture is unclear, but that what is needed for salvation is available to the simplest of minds.

rmwilliamsll · Mar 2, 2005

vossler said:
Just trolling through here when I came upon this statement of yours (emphasis mine). How do you explain Genesis 1 when it says "days" and in no way even opens the door for it to mean anything else? I'm well aware of the argument that day, in some instances, could mean something other than a twenty four hour period. However, whenever it is used in conjunction with a number and/or the words evening and morning it always means a 24 hour period.

For that reason alone all talk of something else is automatically discounted. God is not the author of confusion and if He had meant it to mean something else He would have, not only opened that door, but blown it off its hinges. As it is, it's locked tight and double bolted.

read about framework interpretation in:
The Genesis Debate
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...8153?_encoding=UTF8&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

there is discussion of it in both the:
http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html
http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

there are several excellent websites but start with this essay:
http://home.comcast.net/~babucher/bucher-framework_interp_working.html
because the author is on CF and can respond here.

the BIG point is that yom means 24hr days and FI treats them as such.

....

vossler · Mar 2, 2005

Vance said:
I tend to agree that the word "yom" is meant to be read in the 24-hour sense, but this does not at all mean it was meant to be read as literally six 24-hour periods. The analogy I use most often for this is the poet who uses the symbol of a tree to represent a family. Now, he will never in the poem state that he wants us to view the tree as a family, but he still wants us to get that. But, he also wants us to read the word "tree" in his poem as a literal "leaf and branch" tree, not some other form of tree such as a "tree" computer file system. He wants us to hold to the proper definition of "tree" but he also wants us to realize that he is not actually writing a poem about a tree, but about a family.

If God is telling us about His Creative process and using the figurative literary motif of six days, then he wants us to hold to the six 24-hour period definition, but realize he is not using this phrase literally, but as a literary device.

And, you are right, God is not the author of confusion, but He has inspired a lot of writing that has resulted in a LOT of confusion and angst and disagreement and strife and even killing fellow Christians. Nothing new there. Even Peter said that much of Paul's writing was difficult to understand (to say the least!). I urge you to read my recent post on Augustine's approach to this issue. Also, consider that the Westminster Confession of Faith concedes that much of Scripture is unclear, but that what is needed for salvation is available to the simplest of minds.

Thanks!

I like your analogy, but I don't feel it is appropriate when talking about this subject. I think you would agree that God is very meticulous and purposeful with His Word. Knowing this I would find it hard to believe that he would open this area to such confusion. Let's use another area of scripture that is, in my opinion, a great comparison with Genesis 1 and that is Exodus 20:8-11.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Here God compares our work week with His creation and says again that in six days he created. For me to interpret otherwise, without some very strong biblical reasons, would be heresy.

Let me ask you a question. If someone new to Christianity and God came and read the Bible with a simple "childlike faith", I think you would agree that out of 100 people to do so well over 90% would come to the conclusion that the days of Genesis 1 were 24 hour days. It is only after man gets into the equation that doubt over this ever enters. I don't think you would argue that the smarter a man is intellectually, the more difficult of a time he will have with a literal Genesis.

I would argue, without anything to substantiate it, that the vast majority of people who strongly believe the earth to be millions or billions of years old are highly educated. The average everyday guy on the street may say he believes in millions of years, but probably not with a lot of conviction. I would submit that the reason he does isn't so much that he's convinced of it, but rather that he doesn't want to appear unintelligent. Ahhh, but that's a whole other topic.

Vance · Mar 2, 2005

Yes, the average guy on the street TODAY would automatically assume that it is meant to be read literally. But the average shepherd hearing the story in 1500 BC would almost assuredly NOT hear it that way. The preference, and even assumption, of writings about our past being written in strict historical narrative is fairly recent (basically since the enlightenment). For most of our human history, people told about their past in other literary styles, especially in the form of symbolic, typological and other figurative presentations.

As for the reaction of the average reader, place Romans 11 in front of a dozen "average Joe" types and see what different responses you get from them. Even among the intelligensia of Christianity, this is confusing and causes fights in the hallways of the seminaries! :0)

Oh, and on the application of the "days" to the Sabbath observance, the "six day" framework was also used to mandate that farmers rotate their crops once every seven YEARS. So, we can see right there that it was the idea of resting at periodic intervals of seven that was the message of the choice of literary framework, not the strict idea of 24 hour days. God presented a single framework that He then applies to both days of the week AND to years. God could just as easily have chosen to describe the process as seven years and then apply it to both days and years. It is not the amount of time passing that matters, it is that God chose to describe it in a specific framework as a lesson for our use and benefit.

The Lady Kate · Mar 2, 2005

Maccie said:
I hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you said this, Lady Kate!

Of course! (<---closest thing to a tongue-in-cheek smiley)

God gave me a brain, and I'm sure he intends me to use it. And I, for one, am extremely glad that scientists through the ages have asked questions and that medicine, technology, biology, chemistry, etc. etc. have progressed over the last few thousand years.

And if the YEC's thought properly about it, they would be glad too. Otherwise plenty of you wouldn't be here now!!

vossler · Mar 2, 2005

Vance said:
Yes, the average guy on the street TODAY would automatically assume that it is meant to be read literally. But the average shepherd hearing the story in 1500 BC would almost assuredly NOT hear it that way. The preference, and even assumption, of writings about our past being written in strict historical narrative is fairly recent (basically since the enlightenment). For most of our human history, people told about their past in other literary styles, especially in the form of symbolic, typological and other figurative presentations.

What do you base this information on? This is the first time I've ever heard or been presented with this theory.

Vance said:
As for the reaction of the average reader, place Romans 11 in front of a dozen "average Joe" types and see what different responses you get from them. Even among the intelligensia of Christianity, this is confusing and causes fights in the hallways of the seminaries! :0)

This is probably true, which just goes to show that when you have something that is as clear and simple to understand as Genesis we shouldn't try to make more out it. The time could be spent in areas where it may not, at least upon initial reading, have it's meaning clearly established.

Vance said:
Oh, and on the application of the "days" to the Sabbath observance, the "six day" framework was also used to mandate that farmers rotate their crops once every seven YEARS. So, we can see right there that it was the idea of resting at periodic intervals of seven that was the message of the choice of literary framework, not the strict idea of 24 hour days. God presented a single framework that He then applies to both days of the week AND to years. God could just as easily have chosen to describe the process as seven years and then apply it to both days and years. It is not the amount of time passing that matters, it is that God chose to describe it in a specific framework as a lesson for our use and benefit.

I'm a bit confused, the passage of scripture that you are referring to in Levitcus 25 is like Genesis 1 and pretty clearly stated. Seven years means exactly that, seven years. No poetic license is needed.

You mention the seven YEARS as support for the days of creation being just an interval of time to be used or determined, I'm guessing, as we see fit? In other words, it is some sort of framework we're allowed to fit whatever periods of time we'd like. Is this correct?

Vance · Mar 2, 2005

Yes, the genesis account was given to provide a framework of work and rest cycles. Not to use as we see fit, but so that God could use it in the way HE sees fit, as with the Sabbath rest and the farming "rest".

As for Genesis being "clear" whereas other Scripture is not clear, you make a distinction without much of a difference. First, Genesis is only clearly literal if you read such texts as clearly literal. If it was crystal clear, you would not have a good number of Church fathers reading it NON-literally from the very beginning. Augustine, for example, did not read it as six literal days at all. Neither did Origen and a number of others. It is clearly not as clear as you would like to make it! Second, consider a text like Job. For some, it reads clearly like an historical account. For others, it reads just as clearly as the equivalent of a parable. Calvin, a VERY literal reader, thought it was not literal history, for example.

Then consider the whole geocentrism issue. All those verses spoke VERY clearly to those who did not have the benefit of our current understanding, to be referring to a geocentric universe. Look at what the geocentrics say today, they STILL say it is clearly speaking of an earth-centered solar system.

As for the evidence that ancient cultures did not read their stories about their past as literal historical narrative, check out the thread called something like that in this forum.

rmwilliamsll · Mar 2, 2005

What do you base this information on? This is the first time I've ever heard or been presented with this theory.

the rise of modern historical thinking is well documented.
there is a nice description of the process at:
http://www.ceu.hu/sun/SUN_2004/Detailed_Descriptions/cosmologies_of_history.htm
from the POV of postmodern deconstructionism.

the book i can remember on the topic is:
History and Historians

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-7154910-1108153?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

...

vossler · Mar 3, 2005

Vance - Interesting response. I'm going to explore the links rmwilliams provided. As for our dialog, I'm not interested in getting into a long discussion on whether Genesis can and should be taken literally. You obviously believe that it shouldn't and I believe it should, we both understand each other's beliefs and that's all I initially wanted. My whole reason for even posting was your statement:

"First, I have NO Scriptural or theological reason to accept them, since I had already concluded that the text was meant to be read figuratively."

There are scriptural reasons to accept the text as written and that was my purpose in responding. You may choose not to believe it or interpret it otherwise but I pointed out where scripture does support it.

The dialog was interesting and I enjoyed it.

Vance · Mar 3, 2005

vossler said:
Vance - Interesting response. I'm going to explore the links rmwilliams provided. As for our dialog, I'm not interested in getting into a long discussion on whether Genesis can and should be taken literally. You obviously believe that it shouldn't and I believe it should, we both understand each other's beliefs and that's all I initially wanted. My whole reason for even posting was your statement:

"First, I have NO Scriptural or theological reason to accept them, since I had already concluded that the text was meant to be read figuratively."

There are scriptural reasons to accept the text as written and that was my purpose in responding. You may choose not to believe it or interpret it otherwise but I pointed out where scripture does support it.

The dialog was interesting and I enjoyed it.

Yes, notice I said that "I" have no Scriptural reason to accept them "since I had already concluded . . ." This means that because of that conclusion, I didn't have any Scriptural reasons. This is not saying that there are no Scriptural reasons which someone else may find. Just like the geocentrist feels there are Scriptural reasons to believe that the earth is fixed and unmoving and is the center of the solar system. Because you have concluded that the Scripture does not say this (ie, it should not be read literally in that regard), you have no Scriptural reason to accept a geocentric solar system.

I would also recommend the discussion here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1184889-support-for-ancients-not-viewing-their-stories-as-literal-history.html

if you have not already looked at it. There are a couple which argue from your perspective on this issue, and it fleshes it out a bit more.

Did You Compromise?

The Lady Kate

Guest

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

avid reader

Senior Veteran

Contributor

The Lady Kate

Guest

Senior Veteran

Contributor

avid reader

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency