dr. dino's point of view

[Assyrian]

so youare saying that science trumps the Bible, is not infallible thus cannot be the words of God and subject to the interpretations of the ungodly.

do i have that correct then?

No that is not what I said at all.

no it isn't. it is recognizing what is being written in scripture and how it is being written, it is not being inconsistant but we also do not extrapolate that to passages which are not allegorical.

It is taking what science says and realising that the literal interpretation is not what scripture is teaching. But you only know this because science has told you the earth is a sphere and that it rotates and orbits the sun.

There is no 'extrapolation' needed to apply this same principle to the creation accounts because as I said we have more basis for taking these account figuratively than we have for, say, the description of the sun stopping for Joshua, or Solomon's description of the sun rushing around the earth to the place it rises.

no you don't because you have no evidence as to the author's state of mind nor intent. you cannot say 'he meant those passages to be figurative' because you have no idea what he knew or didn't know. you are basing your argument on assumptions and that is just wrong.

And yet as Deamiter says, you assume without any basis that the author intended them literally. You assume you can tell literal from allegorical when you cannot say, though I asked you again and again, what the 'seed' means which crushes the snakes head.

But we do know how Moses interpreted God's days from Psalm 90:4. A good indication that these were not meant literally is the way the entire creation is described as happening in a single day in Gen 2:4, or that Adam was going to die the day he ate the fruit. Another good indication the passages are not mean literally is the fact that we have completely different orders of creation in Genesis 1 & 2. We also know how other authors interpreted the snake in Genesis 3. It was really Satan.

we know moses was raised in the egyptian court and was educated via the same means as the egyptian prince's, etc., he came from the top of the ladder not the bottom rung, he had access to all that came into the land, he was not some dumb sheep herder.

And you think that a highly educated prince would not understand metaphor and allegory?

you do not consider all the facts before making your determinations, you do what secular science does, omit data so your conclusions come out the way you want them to and not the way they really are.

Two unsupported assertions for the price of one.

Now please go back and deal with my point, the inconsistency between how you treat spherical earth and heliocentrism on one hand, finding non literal interpretations of scripture to fit the science, and the age of the earth and evolution on the other, insisting on rejecting the science in favour of literalism. How do you even know which science to accept and which to reject?

 

[Assyrian]

Well travelled ground. I was simply suggesting that your geocentrism argument will not move any YEC I know to reach your conclusion, since we don't accept the geocentrism argument.

Our view is that no YEC should be rejecting an interpretation of "sunrise" in favor of a "literal reading" in order to make God's word look fallible. Nor should we reject a literal reading in favor of an "interpretation" simply because human consensus says that Word is fallible..

Yes, yes, I recognise the fervency with which YECs defend scripture their interpretation of the flat earth and geocentric passages, and equally the fervency with which they defend scripture with their rejection of evolution and geological age. What I can't understand is the inconsistency. They defend the flat earth and geocentric passages by insisting their non literal interpretation is the only way to interpret them, the way they were meant to be interpreted. Yet there is not reason they could not try to defend them the way they defend YEC by denying the science and insisting on a literal interpretation. Or equally, they could defend Genesis by treating it the way the treat the flat earth and geocentric passages, assuming the science is right and insisting the literal six day was not the way the passage was intended. Why two contradictory approaches to the same question, each approach defended by an assumption that this is the only way to do it.

We have of course argued the many rules of literary construction that make the intent clear. If we are to abandon the rules and simply choose a simpler way to proceed, of course we choose whatever exalts the Word of God, even at the expense of human consensus.

Argued yes, but no consistent YEC rules have appeared, certainly no rules than can produce non literal interpretation of the geocentric and flat earth passages but a literal interpetation of the creation account. It is the same old inconsistency again.

You know in some denominations they exalt the Word of God by placing it in a gold encrusted cover and it is approached only to kneel and kiss. I think it is more honouring to God's word to get to grips with what it is really saying, even if that challenges out understanding of how God speaks to us through his word and how he inspired the bible.

 

[busterdog]

Yes, yes, I recognise the fervency with which YECs defend scripture their interpretation of the flat earth and geocentric passages, and equally the fervency with which they defend scripture with their rejection of evolution and geological age. What I can't understand is the inconsistency. They defend the flat earth and geocentric passages by insisting their non literal interpretation is the only way to interpret them, the way they were meant to be interpreted. Yet there is not reason they could not try to defend them the way they defend YEC by denying the science and insisting on a literal interpretation. Or equally, they could defend Genesis by treating it the way the treat the flat earth and geocentric passages, assuming the science is right and insisting the literal six day was not the way the passage was intended. Why two contradictory approaches to the same question, each approach defended by an assumption that this is the only way to do it.

Argued yes, but no consistent YEC rules have appeared, certainly no rules than can produce non literal interpretation of the geocentric and flat earth passages but a literal interpetation of the creation account. It is the same old inconsistency again.

You know in some denominations they exalt the Word of God by placing it in a gold encrusted cover and it is approached only to kneel and kiss. I think it is more honouring to God's word to get to grips with what it is really saying, even if that challenges out understanding of how God speaks to us through his word and how he inspired the bible.

And people put a plastic Jesus on the dashboard, but YECs and TEs all know the difference between that and the real one.

I know that you don't like my rules of interpretation, but we went to considerable effort to catalogue them. You can call it inconsistency or you can call it rules that you don't like. Where the rules are hampered with difficulty, and all rules are, we simply go back to the preference for the literal Word of God -- which no one here has confused for a plastic Jesus. That is, if you exalt the consensus of science above that Word -- which you have every right to do -- it becomes quite easy to find "inerrancy" to be a plastic Jesus. But it seems eminently more reasonable to observe that you have in fact at that point come once again to a fundamental cleavage in belief -- not a plastic idol-worshipping inconsistency. Anyone can breack out the metaphors on a point of intractible divergence.

 

[theFijian]

And people put a plastic Jesus on the dashboard, but YECs and TEs all know the difference between that and the real one.

I know that you don't like my rules of interpretation, but we went to considerable effort to catalogue them. You can call it inconsistency or you can call it rules that you don't like. Where the rules are hampered with difficulty, and all rules are, we simply go back to the preference for the literal Word of God -- which no one here has confused for a plastic Jesus. That is, unless you exalt the consensus of science above that Word -- which you have every right to do -- at which point you will find "inerrancy" to be a plastic Jesus. But it seems eminently more reasonable to observe that you have in fact at that point come once again to a fundamental cleavage in belief -- not a plastic idol-worshipping inconsistency. Anyone can breack out the metaphors on a point of intractible divergence.

You know I still haven't seen anyone explain to me what verses tell us that the literal interpretation should be the default one.

 

[busterdog]

You know I still haven't seen anyone explain to me what verses tell us that the literal interpretation should be the default one.

We had a number of elaborate arguments explaining rules within the text to distinguish between intended metaphor (ie, if your right eye offends you ....) and literal narrative.

We had a number of arguments for why the Word was "exalted." Flowery language, admittedly.

But, apparently we don't have language that deals definitively a preference for a specific frame of reference. (Assuming that the following is not specific enough:
Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.)
Seems to me that scientific and academic consensus, or even what your own eyes tell you, does not benefit from superior and explicit approbation.

And what language could there possibly be that would establish the preferred frame of reference? I mean really? We all know what is said about the eternal and preferred frame of reference. How exactly are you going to improve upon that?

Let's say that you have a dispute about whether the voice in your head is from God or from the devil. How do you resolve that? Can the Bible establish an absolute standard? Can the Bible establish an exact standard for whether the authority of the Pope is legitimate? The Bible endorses Bishops and he is one. What exactly are you going to do to resolve ALL doubt in EVERY mind? You can't. Thus, the flowery language and the Holy Spirit.

 

[theFijian]

But, apparently we don't have language that deals definitively a preference for a specific frame of reference. Seems to me that scientific and academic consensus, or even what your own eyes tell you, does not benefit from superior and explicit approbation.

Maybe it's just late but what's weird is that I know what all those words mean but when you strung them together they made no sense. it seems like you're saying that we can't really be sure what the real meaning of the texts are in English, and nothing we seem to be able to do with it is really worthy of jumping up and down about.

 

[Assyrian]

And people put a plastic Jesus on the dashboard, but YECs and TEs all know the difference between that and the real one.

I know that you don't like my rules of interpretation, but we went to considerable effort to catalogue them. You can call it inconsistency or you can call it rules that you don't like. Where the rules are hampered with difficulty, and all rules are, we simply go back to the preference for the literal Word of God -- which no one here has confused for a plastic Jesus.

No, not rules I don't like, though I don't, rules YECs apply inconsistently. There is a preference for the literal interpretation of the word of God, but when this runs into conflict with science, there is no consistent approach, and no consistent explanation for the different approaches. There are two choices, accept the science and abandon the literal interpretation as mistaken, or stick to the literal interpretation and reject the science.

You certainly prefer 'the literal Word of God' when it come to the age of the earth and evolution, but you do not apply this preference with flat earth and geocentrism. You could just as easily say 'I am sticking with what God's word says, the science must be wrong' with the older sciences the way you do with geology and biology. Or you could take the wisdom the church learned over 1800 years and look for other ways to interpret Genesis, the way the church found non literal interpretations for the passages that disagreed with a round earth and heliocentrism.

But YEC is stuck in the 18th century, it seems it can accept reinterpretations of scripture that are established in tradition, but new ones 'deny the word of God'. But these older reinterpretations of scripture were established by scholarly believers who were willing to struggle with the meaning of scripture in the face of seemingly contradictory science, something YECs refuse to do with science today. If it is wrong to do it with geology and evolution, then it was wrong for generations in the past to do it with round earth and heliocentrism and YECs should reject their manipulation of God's word.

That is, unless you exalt the consensus of science above that Word -- which you have every right to do -- at which point you will find "inerrancy" to be a plastic Jesus. But it seems eminently more reasonable to observe that you have in fact at that point come once again to a fundamental cleavage in belief -- not a plastic idol-worshipping inconsistency. Anyone can breack out the metaphors on a point of intractible divergence.

The problem I see with inerrancy is that it is not what the bible teaches, and worse, people seem to ignore what the bible says in the name of defending the bible, and they think this is exalting the bible. They become like the parent who has to keep saying 'What Johnny really means is...' when he has clearly called Mrs Hendrickson fat

 

[archaeologist]

[QUOTEGod used many aspects of the Hebrew culture including language, idioms, understanding of the universe etc... to make his spiritual points][/QUOTE]

you forget that God called the israelites out of the secular cultures and set them apart. (read about the sinai sojourn) He gave them His rules, His laws, His directions. He wasn't using the secular world or its ways nor was He influenced by them.

assyrian:

No that is not what I said at all.

sounds like it. you think science is the only tool to interpret the Bible, but that is false.

It is taking what science says and realising that the literal interpretation is not what scripture is teaching

there you go again. saying science is infallible and scripture isn't. you have it backwards.

But you only know this because science has told you the earth is a sphere and that it rotates and orbits the sun.

you keep using the same argument over andover as if it justifies all of what science does. the above certainly is very arrogant, as if only science can provide the answers. funny, the Bible never directs us to follow science...why is that?

you assume without any basis that the author intended them literally. You assume you can tell literal from allegorical when you cannot say, though I asked you again and again, what the 'seed' means which crushes the snakes head.

why do you keep charging me with what you do? i am making no assumptions, and i have a foundation, it is your side that makes assumptions and changes scripture to fit what you want.

please, stop mis-representing me. i know, i just never told you nor will i now. your personal attacks are ignored.

But we do know how Moses interpreted God's days from Psalm 90:4. A good indication that these were not meant literally is the way the entire creation is described as happening in a single day in Gen 2:4, or that Adam was going to die the day he ate the fruit.

i am so tired of people bringing that mis-interpretation up. it is not describing creation nor has anything to do with that act or time period. read it again with an open-mind and you will see what moses is refering to.

Another good indication the passages are not mean literally is the fact that we have completely different orders of creation in Genesis 1 & 2.

that is not an indicator, that is reading into what one wants.

And you think that a highly educated prince would not understand metaphor and allegory?

i know he did that is why genesis 1 & 2 are not allegorical.

 

[busterdog]

Maybe it's just late but what's weird is that I know what all those words mean but when you strung them together they made no sense. it seems like you're saying that we can't really be sure what the real meaning of the texts are in English, and nothing we seem to be able to do with it is really worthy of jumping up and down about.

I was a little verbally hyped after taking someone apart professionally. It would be like the gift of tongues -- if Klingon or Orc were a tongue.

What the Bible allegedly lacks science is certainly missing: unequivocal authority making it the final word.

 

[Willtor]

And people put a plastic Jesus on the dashboard, but YECs and TEs all know the difference between that and the real one.

I know that you don't like my rules of interpretation, but we went to considerable effort to catalogue them. You can call it inconsistency or you can call it rules that you don't like. Where the rules are hampered with difficulty, and all rules are, we simply go back to the preference for the literal Word of God -- which no one here has confused for a plastic Jesus. That is, if you exalt the consensus of science above that Word -- which you have every right to do -- it becomes quite easy to find "inerrancy" to be a plastic Jesus. But it seems eminently more reasonable to observe that you have in fact at that point come once again to a fundamental cleavage in belief -- not a plastic idol-worshipping inconsistency. Anyone can breack out the metaphors on a point of intractible divergence.

I'd like to do something a little Socratic, if you would indulge me:

If understand correctly, you take the flat Earth references figuratively because you know that the Earth is round, right?

 

[archaeologist]

please post those flat earth references.

"four corners", stretched" and other such words do not count.

 

[busterdog]

I'd like to do something a little Socratic, if you would indulge me:

If understand correctly, you take the flat Earth references figuratively because you know that the Earth is round, right?

No.

From a purely poetic perspective. I analyzed the literature quite carefully and applied the rules. I was an English major. I have a law degree. I have to parse language all day long to figure out what people mean when they write things.

I certainly doubted very highly that the Bible could contain such error, since I both know what the earth looks like and believe in inerrancy. I understand the importance of the scientific frame of reference and I use it all the time. I just find the inerrant Word to be a better frame of reference. People may doubt that my literary analysis wasn't fudged -- but no one is immune from that easy criticism.

But come on. Does Tevye think the universe is geocentric when he sings sunrise, sunset?

 

[Deamiter]

I have to parse language all day long to figure out what people mean when they write things.

Do you reject the existence of the many aspects of Hebrew poetry that are found in Genesis 1-11? If not, how have you come to the conclusion that geocentric references are purely poetic when you've come to the different conclusion that the creation story must be both poetic and factual?

 

[busterdog]

Do you reject the existence of the many aspects of Hebrew poetry that are found in Genesis 1-11? If not, how have you come to the conclusion that geocentric references are purely poetic when you've come to the different conclusion that the creation story must be both poetic and factual?

Not at all. But, I think the case is over-done. It bears some comparison to other poetic styles, but not that much. It is clearly distinct.

But, I don't get how the inclusion of art rules out narrative content. Job is full of poetry and literal fact. The song of Miriam contains fact, but lots more art and distinctly metaphorical structure.

I am going to find the link for the prior thread. Honestly, I really don't want to do it again. With all due respect, we pretty much know how the discussion is going to go.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5021948-seperating-metaphor-from-literal-truth.html

 

[theIdi0t]

Not at all. But, I think the case is over-done. It bears some comparison to other poetic styles, but not that much. It is clearly distinct.

But, I don't get how the inclusion of art rules out narrative content. Job is full of poetry and literal fact.

What are the "literal facts" of Job? Do you mean to say that Job was a historical person?

 

[metherion]

"four corners", stretched" and other such words do not count

I'm genuinely curious. Why not?

Metherion

 

[theFijian]

I'm genuinely curious. Why not?

Metherion

Cos archie says so of course!

 

[archaeologist]

I'm genuinely curious. Why not?

because they do not teach a flat earth. you will have to come up with direct verses which show that the Bible teaches a flat earth. your interpretation will not count.

Do you mean to say that Job was a historical person

of course he was.

 

[theFijian]

because they do not teach a flat earth.

So a sphere has four corners does it?

 

[metherion]

How exactly do they not show a flat earth?

I mean, squares have corners, but spheres don't. And spheres aren't stretched flat.

Or are you volunteering to lay the groundwork to show the the Hebrews had the idea of a round earth during Moses' time which was, IIRC, before the Greeks (the first people to do so) thought up the idea?

Metherion