Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Since all interpretation rises or falls based on whether we are following good rules of interpretation, I wanted to include some of them, and some quotes by great men of the faith through the years. You will notice that they are not taken from a context of discussing Genesis or creation/evolution. It was a book concerning eschatology, but the principles are the same.
...
Augustine:
Augustine, according to Farrar, was one of the first to make Scripture conform to the interpretation of the church.
- Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come,
Luther: every word should be allowed to stand in its natural meaning and that should not be abandoned unless faith forces us to it... It is the attribute of Holy Scripture that it interprets itself by passages and places with belong together, and can only be understood by the rule of faith.
The literal sense of Scripture alone is the whole essence of faith and of Christian theology... I have observed this, that all heresies and errors have originated, not from the simple words of Scripture, as is so universally asserted, but from neglecting the simple words of Scripture, and from the affectation of purely subjective ... tropes and inferences.
I don't want to get into a detailed discussion about Revelations, but on a general note, do you think that Revelations is all 100% literally true or is some of it symbolic? And as a follow up question to whatever your answer is, why do you think that?I would like to see some evidence that shows that Genesis is nothing but a fable or myth. It's fine if that is someone's interpretation, but all we have to appeal to is godless science. Isn't it idolatry to take man's opinion (science) and place it above God's Word? Apparently not, to the Christian Darwinists.
However, the problem is, the rest of scripture can easily be dismissed as stories, myths and fables too. Why stop at Genesis? Why not do the same with the gospels too? Why not dismiss any phrase or expression in the Bible we do not like as a mere myth and "not to be taken literally?" A literal resurrection? Nah. A literal crucifixion? Nope, just a metaphor for us dying to self. A literal Jesus? No. Just a metaphor for the Christ within us all (sounds strikingly New Age to me). A literal God? Nope; just an impersonal energy force, or the Universe itself. Where does it end?
If we're going to throw out the foundation of the Bible (Creation, sin, the Fall, the devil as a temptor), where do we stop? Why even bother stopping?
Evolution says there is no need for any supernatural entity to have caused the Big Bang, so why believe in a god at all - let alone the God of Christianity? Is fear of hell that strong? (What if hell's a myth and a metaphor for walking in spiritual darkness?) The list goes on.
These are questions for the Christian Darwinists I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to. But then, science has never had the answers for me. I don't worship science. I worship the True God of heaven and earth. Amen.
The Calvin quote was taken out of context, too. Calvin actually argued for an accommodationist hermeneutic. Thus, while he read the Bible quite literally, he did not advocate understanding it all as history. The Biologos blog has had a running series on Calvin's hermeneutical approach, written by Peter Enns.Interesting that you include a quote by Augustine, and then an entire section that invalidates a majority of his work by indicating that allegory should not be used.
Note that this is why it makes complete sense why Luther rejected Copernicus' theory that the earth revolves around the sun based on his "literal" reading of the account of Joshua stopping the sun in the sky.
Assuming Moses did write this (hi MallonI was looking more for commentaries defending Genesis from this perspective, but I thank you for your response. It does include perhaps many of the points they would make anyway.
I don't have time to deal with all of these and offer my initial thoughts about them, but I'll address a couple of them that stand out, and then go on to what I think is most important in approaching any passage of scripture, and that is rules of interpretation.
Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day"
Exodus 31:17
"It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth"
Moses is the accepted author of Exodus, and it is said of Moses that he was the most humble man on the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3) and that God spoke to Moses "face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." (Exodus 33:11). If there were ever someone in a place to know creation was in six literal days, it was a man who talked with God face to face. There is no other reasonable interpretation that can be taken from these passages than that Moses meant the days as literal days, not from a linguistic standpoint.
Actually this is something I dug up myselfGenesis 1:5
And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Genesis 1:8
And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:13
And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Genesis 1:19
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Genesis 1:23
And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
Genesis 1:31
And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
This makes it appear that you are relating things you have read rather than doing your own Bible study,
Indeed, you just have to read Genesis. Lets simplify this. When you quote this can you highlight in blue all of day three?for this is standard knowledge that the days in Genesis were exactly like the Jewish day, started with evening and went to morning, and it is easy to find.
You're not allowed repetition in a metaphor?Aside from that, since the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures, they were inspired not only to describe creation as literal days, but to confirm it six different times.
So in the parable of the labourers the repetition ofIf you really want someone to get a point, you repeat it.
Just because it is repeated doesn't mean the reason for the repetition is to emphasise your interpretation. Like I showed you, there are plenty of reasons to interpret the creation accounts figuratively, repetition isn't a reason not to.He has repeated it so that regardless of the problems we have with it in view of what man's wisdom is telling us today, they were to be interpreted as literal days, and we could either rely on God and on His Word or put our trust in man and man's wisdom.
Thanks for the response,
H.
Only if you insist that the Bible is a homogeneous book instead of a collection of documents in multiple literary styles. In other words, that's a strawman argument.
Parts of it, but definitely not all of it. It's pretty well accepted among scholars that the Pentateuch is an amalgamation of years of oral tradition and documents by many authors.Was Moses really writing the first five books to the Bible
To establish God's covenant with Israel.What was the point of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy?
As an account showing that God created nature and is in charge of it, rather than all the nature gods of the surrounding nations.How did they take the account of creation?
Orally, sung, as part of a liturgical service.How did they read or listen to it?
Funny, that's what we've been saying the whole time, and it's YECs who refuse to accept that.t was not written yesterday in our culture, customs, settings, or anything like that. There's a cultural, geographical, time, & mindset gap.
Parts of it, but definitely not all of it. It's pretty well accepted among scholars that the Pentateuch is an amalgamation of years of oral tradition and documents by many authors. To establish God's covenant with Israel. As an account showing that God created nature and is in charge of it, rather than all the nature gods of the surrounding nations. Orally, sung, as part of a liturgical service. Funny, that's what we've been saying the whole time, and it's YECs who refuse to accept that. Did you read GCC's post?
YEC = young earth creationistWhat? I do agree with what you are saying, Melethiel. I wasn't actually posting these questions for you. Your comments are still noted & approved. I didn't see YEC's comments, yet. Can you find me the links to his refusal? This topic, this thread, is about the evidence that Creation or Genesis is a fable. I would like to see the evidence. I am writing this to anybody who is considering the possibility that the exact creation account was a fable or not exact. To you people, I just want you to see better evidence. I see a mention about the stars, that light takes millions of years to travel here. That is on;y on the assumption that we understand the whole entire universe. We only know the limited space that we occupy in. I am not totally disproving the stars argument. I just would like to hear other arguments, too. At the end of the day, I am not even sure if arguments can do justice with facts, the past, with things we don't totally know or understand yet. There are other questions we must ask ourselves, too.
Actually the Rabbis practice a range of different methods of interpretation.Since all interpretation rises or falls based on whether we are following good rules of interpretation, I wanted to include some of them, and some quotes by great men of the faith through the years. You will notice that they are not taken from a context of discussing Genesis or creation/evolution. It was a book concerning eschatology, but the principles are the same.
HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION
All interpretation began with the literal interpretation of Ezra. This literal method became the basic method of Rabbinism.
Paul tells us he was using allegory in Galatians, I think you need to find a more reliable souce to learn about the history of interpretation than Dwight Pentecost.It was the accepted method used by the New Testament in the interpretation of the Old and was so employed by the Lord and His apostles.
This literal method was the method of the Church Fathers until the time of Origen when the allegorical method, which had been devised to harmonize Platonic philosophy and scripture, was adopted.
The problem with allegorization is that in the middle ages people took it to ridiculous extremes the five colonades in the pool of Bethesda are the five books of the Torah, with the Reformation there was a reaction again this. Modern literalism takes the pendulum even further. But the bible itself commends allegorization, finding symbolic meanings in the passage very different from the meaning the author intended.Augustines influence brought this allegorizing method into the established church and brought an end to all true exegesis. This system continued until the Reformation. At the Reformation the literal method of interpretation was solidly established and, in spite of the attempts of the church to bring all interpretation into conformity to an adopted creed, literal interpretation continued and became the basis on which all true exegesis rests.
It would be concluded, then, from the study of the history of interpretation that the original and accepted method of interpretation was the literal method, which was used by the Lord, the greatest interpreter, and any other method was introduced to promote heterodoxy. Therefore, the literal method must be accepted as the basic method for right interpretation in any field of doctrine today.
- Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come,
Well, here's a basic principle of understanding the Bible. If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense. Always go for the literal meaning first. For example, in John 15:5 when Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches" what did He really mean? Is Jesus a vine? Yes or no. No, but even though it's a figure, the truth is still literal. Even though Jesus is not a vine and I'm not a branch, He is still like a vinethe main source of life. And since I get my life from Him, I'm just a branch. So, a figure, but still the truth is literal. James MacDonald, The Weekly Walk, 6/14/10
Augustine:
Augustine, according to Farrar, was one of the first to make Scripture conform to the interpretation of the church.
- Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come,
QUOTES ON LITERAL INTERPRETATION
Tyndale: Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Neverthelater, the Scripture useth proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle, or allegory signifieth, is over the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently...
Wycliff: the whole error in the knowledge of Scripture, and the source of its debasement and falsification by incompetent persons, was the ignorance of grammar and logic.
We may borrow similitudes or allegories from the Scriptures and apply them to our purposes, which allegories are not sense of the Scriptures, but free things besides the Scriptures altogether in the liberty of the Spirit. Such allegory proveth nothing, it is a mere simile. God is a Spirit and all His words are spiritual, and His literal sense is spiritual.
Luther: every word should be allowed to stand in its natural meaning and that should not be abandoned unless faith forces us to it... It is the attribute of Holy Scripture that it interprets itself by passages and places with belong together, and can only be understood by the rule of faith.
The literal sense of Scripture alone is the whole essence of faith and of Christian theology... I have observed this, that all heresies and errors have originated, not from the simple words of Scripture, as is so universally asserted, but from neglecting the simple words of Scripture, and from the affectation of purely subjective ... tropes and inferences.
In the shools of theologians it is a well-known rule that Scripture is to be understood in four ways: literal, allegoric, moral, and anagogic. But if we wish to handle Scripture aright, our one effort will be to obtain unum, simplicem, germanium, et certum sensum literalem. Each passage has one clear, definite, and true sense of its own. All others are but doubtful and uncertain opinions. - Farrar
Calvin: Let us know then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning, and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say. preface to Romans.
Horatius Bonars summary of the principle of exegesis, that came to be the foundation of all real Scriptural interpretation: ... I feel a greater certainty as to the literal interpretation of that whole Word of God historical, doctrinal, prophetical. Literal, if possible, is, I believe, the only maxim that will carry you right through the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation.
- Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come,
I have to go. I'm building a foundation, and will have to finish it later this afternoon.
So by teaching a lesson about the sabbath, it automatically means that Moses did not view the 6 days of creation literally?Assuming Moses did write this (hi Mallon) which to me is much more likely when you are talking about the actual Mosaic Law and the ten commandments. Not sure talking face to face with God would put him in a better position to know if they were literal or not, unless God actually told him they were literal in one of their copnversations. But the big problem is even if Moses wrote these passages, and Moses spoke to God face to face, still doesn't say Moses took the days of Genesis literally. I actually addressed the question in:
(21) Exodus 20:11 uses the days of Genesis not to teach a literal six day creation, but as a lesson in Sabbath observance...
All we know about this passage is that Moses used the 6 days of creation as a lesson for the Sabbath observance; there isn't any description of Moses's feelings about whether or not they were literal at all.....so for anyone to assume he did not see them literally is something that they have brought into their interpretation, not something they have derived from it...When Moses quotes the days of Genesis it is not as lesson in ancient history and the creation of the earth, it is to teach the Isrealites about the Sabbath. All we know about Moses view of the creation days from Exodus 20 is that he saw them as a very good lesson on Sabbath observance.
Well, the Exodus wasn't metaphorical, God's actions in the Exodus were spoken of metaphorically......It would be the same as Moses saying "in 6 days God created the world by his strong outstretched arm, and then on the seventh He rested"....It is worth looking at the ten commandments in Deuteronomy where a different illustration is used for the Sabbath.
Deut 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Instead of using the creation days as a reason for the Sabbath, Moses uses the Israelites being set free from slavery in Egypt, however it isn't a literal description of the Exodus he uses but a metaphorical one where God anthromorphically brought them out with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. If Moses could use a metaphorical description of the Exodus to illustrate the Sabbath, couldn't he also use a metaphorical description of the creation?
I would assume at evening; like it says......Indeed, you just have to read Genesis. Lets simplify this. When you quote this can you highlight in blue all of day three?
Gen 1:8 ESV And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.
17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
What time of day does the third day end?
Sure why not? Is that a problem?You're not allowed repetition in a metaphor?
So in the parable of the labourers the repetition of
Matt 20:3-6 the third hour... the sixth hour... the ninth hour... the eleventh hour
is there to tell us Jesus want's to get across the point he is talking about a literal day?
Yep, and there's about 2,000 years of church teachings that affirm that idea....What about Jesus repeating that he was the bread of life and that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Was he emphasising it show they were to take it literally?
What about
Judges 9:8 The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us.'
9 But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?'
10 And the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come and reign over us.'
11 But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?'
12 And the trees said to the vine, 'You come and reign over us.'
13 But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?'
14 Then all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come and reign over us.'
15 And the bramble said to the trees, 'If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.'
Is the repetition of the trees saying "reign over us" meant to emphasis that these were real talking trees?
Repetition is a way to stress something's importance.......it follows that God felt it important enough to say that they actually were days.....If it were not important, why would it say that "there was evening and there was morning"?Just because it is repeated doesn't mean the reason for the repetition is to emphasise your interpretation. Like I showed you, there are plenty of reasons to interpret the creation accounts figuratively, repetition isn't a reason not to.
Here is a discussion on hermeneutics that I have found quite helpful; its from catholicapologetics.orgActually the Rabbis practice a range of different methods of interpretation.
Paul tells us he was using allegory in Galatians, I think you need to find a more reliable souce to learn about the history of interpretation than Dwight Pentecost.
The problem with allegorization is that in the middle ages people took it to ridiculous extremes the five colonades in the pool of Bethesda are the five books of the Torah, with the Reformation there was a reaction again this. Modern literalism takes the pendulum even further. But the bible itself commends allegorization, finding symbolic meanings in the passage very different from the meaning the author intended.
However allegorization of literal passages is not the issue here. What we need to look at, or try to understand, is what the writer meant in the passage. But if you are dealing with a culture that loved to communicate in metaphor parable and story, you will completely miss the point if you approach it by taking everything as literally as possible unless it is clearly labeled a parable, and assume the writer was thinking in terms of writing a modern history when those were completely foreign concepts. Why take it literally when there are so many indications that it was intended metaphorically and that other writers in the bible interpreted it metaphorically?
Don't forget the corollary: Why would Jesus speak false parables?If I might draw your attention back to your post #29 you asked a very important question: With that why would God inspire a false creation story?
Are we differentiating "false" creation stories/parables from "metaphorical" creation stories/parables?Hi truewinner,
This conversation is really moving along. If I might draw your attention back to your post #29 you asked a very important question: With that why would God inspire a false creation story? Let me encourage you to seek the answer to that question.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Unfortunately, for many YECs here, metaphor = false. This is why you'll often hear them say "If we can't interpret Genesis literally, then the entire Bible must be rejected as false."Are we differentiating "false" creation stories/parables from "metaphorical" creation stories/parables?
Well, I'm not sure I would disagree with that tho; if we discount Genesis 1-12 as all figurative and nothing literal or historically accurate, then we really have nothing to go off of theologically to explain the origins of life and then what basis do we really have that other scripture passages (like the resurrection for instance) are to be interpreted literally?.......Genesis is ambiguous enough that earth could be young, or even hundreds of thousands of years old......and its also ambiguous enough to allow for much of the theory of evolution, just not things like the "single common ancestor"Unfortunately, for many YECs here, metaphor = false. This is why you'll often hear them say "If we can't interpret Genesis literally, then the entire Bible must be rejected as false."
So... you're saying that God could not have made valid and true theological points unless He restricted Himself to using literal language? How does this bode for the teachings of Jesus' parables?Well, I'm not sure I would disagree with that tho; if we discount Genesis 1-12 as all figurative and nothing literal or historically accurate, then we really have nothing to go off of theologically to explain the origins of life and then what basis do we really have that other scripture passages (like the resurrection for instance) are to be interpreted literally?
Well, I'm not sure I would disagree with that tho; if we discount Genesis 1-12 as all figurative and nothing literal or historically accurate, then we really have nothing to go off of theologically to explain the origins of life and then what basis do we really have that other scripture passages (like the resurrection for instance) are to be interpreted literally?.......Genesis is ambiguous enough that earth could be young, or even hundreds of thousands of years old......and its also ambiguous enough to allow for much of the theory of evolution, just not things like the "single common ancestor"
So... you're saying that God could not have made valid and true theological points unless He restricted Himself to using literal language? How does this bode for the teachings of Jesus' parables?
Well, good, we agree, because nobody is arguing that the "entire Bible is to be interpreted figuratively/metaphorically."Noooooo, what I am saying is that God most likely did not intend for the entire Bible to be interpreted figuratively/metaphorically, because if something such as Genesis--which details Creation, a historical event--is to be interpreted completely figuratively, then who is to say that other passages of Scripture are to be interpreted literally at all?
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the entirety of Genesis be interpreted completely figuratively. I doubt if it can be easily deconstructed into a single genre. But even if the entirety of Genesis was figurative, how does it follow that the rest of the Bible is also figurative? This strikes me as a non-sequitur.Noooooo, what I am saying is that God most likely did not intend for the entire Bible to be interpreted figuratively/metaphorically, because if something such as Genesis--which details Creation, a historical event--is to be interpreted completely figuratively, then who is to say that other passages of Scripture are to be interpreted literally at all?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?