Evidence Genesis is just a fable

[Melethiel]

Which post #?

post #20

 

[Jack544]

You have some SERIOUS misconceptions. Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the beginning of the universe. Nothing at all.

Nor does it make any claims on the origin of life, that is abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is impossible.
Genesis contained many metaphors and bits of symbolism. There wasn't a literal TREE of Knowledge. Animals evolved, humans did not.

The Bible is completely TRUE. But some people's interpretations are flawed.

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.

 

[Hupomone10]

Except I wasn't assuming anything of the sort. You though the repetition of the days meant the Holy spirit was confirming they were literal days, but this would only hold if you cannot have repetition in a metaphor. Which of course you can.

Except that you are.

there are plenty of reasons to interpret the creation accounts figuratively

You're not allowed repetition in a metaphor?

(the point to which you were directly referring to was my use of a day being indicated to be an evening and morning, to which you responded ... "metaphor?" The example below, using your own example, will show the flaw in this reasoning. Let me go back to what you said later:

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?

To use your hermeneutic, how do you know then that the hour of the day in this obvious parable is referring to a literal day? It doesn't say that. Heck, it doesn't even clarify the day as Genesis does six times! So you have free license to assume, if there were only a reason from secular scientists bow to do so, that the hour of this day is not literal. He may have been teaching that a landowner sent laborers out every 300,000 years, because we know it's a metaphor, right?

But instead, we understand perfectly that when Jesus mentions the hour of the day within what is clearly a parable, even though He doesn't define the day as Genesis clearly does, that He is referring to a literal 24 hr day, even though it is imbedded in a parable.

The overall message is that the kingdom of God, over a long period of time, will have laborers sent out in the early stages, middle stages, and late stages. But within the parable, the hour of the day is taken literally, by me, and by you for it is your example.

BTW, a metaphor is something like "it took him all day to finish his homework", even though it didn't take literally all day. But if I had said "it took him all day to finish his homework; he started at 0700, still working at 1200, and he didn't stop until 7 am the next morning." Would you still think it was a metaphor?

This is an example of a metaphor, not a statement in the context of a historical document calling something clearly, literally, "the first day" and then going on just to make it clear by saying "and there was evening and there was morning, the first day. But I realize you will not be convinced. It took a lot for me also. Anyway, we clearly see that you take it as literal when you want to, as shown in the very example you used, and don't when you don't want to.

Anyway, a collection of quotations from literalists saying we should interpret the bible literally is hardly an argument. You need to support these rules of literalism from scripture, not because your favourite literalists tell you to take it literally.

and an argument from liberals and metaphoricists saying we should interpret the bible as allegory is hardly an argument either. That's why I included the footnotes of where Dwight Pentecost got this information.

Is that Dwight Pentecost again? I though I showed you he wasn't reliable on the subject.

Whether you think you have shown he was reliable or not, which I question, to attack the principles in this list you need to attack the authors that said them, not the author that compiled them. That's like refuting something an atheist compiled of evolutionists simply because he's an atheist. But I think you know that; if you don't, now you do. Any attack will work, right? As long as they don't challenge you on it.

Blessings,
I'll get back to the long post in the next few hours (meaning a couple of hundred thousand years).
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

That's not answering Mallon's question.

I'm glad you caught that.

It was meant to show him the nature of his question, as I explained below the small portion you quoted. And I content that the rest IS an answer to his question.

 

[Hupomone10]

post #20

It wasn't addressed to me, but to ER.

I've had a hard enough time trying to keep up with those responding to me, much less read some of the longer ones and respond.

But if you wish, I'll try to do this tonight.


Just for you, sister !

 

[JoeyArnold]

If some parts of the Bible are poetic then what other parts are also poetic? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a poem, too? If some parts of the Bible are parable then what other parts are also parable? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a parable, too? If some parts of the Bible are hyperbole then what other parts are also hyperbole? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross an hyperbole, too? Does it sound silly now?

Is there a difference between questioning authenticity and questioning style?

 

[Hupomone10]

post #20

Will you respond to mine, concerning the principles of interpretation and how they relate to how we should interpret scripture in general, and then if we should single out Genesis 1-11 and not use these principles, a reason why not?

Thanks,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

Except I wasn't assuming anything of the sort. You though the repetition of the days meant the Holy spirit was confirming they were literal days, but this would only hold if you cannot have repetition in a metaphor. Which of course you can.

Is that Dwight Pentecost again? I though I showed you he wasn't reliable on the subject. Anyway, a collection of quotations from literalists saying we should interpret the bible literally is hardly an argument. You need to support these rules of literalism from scripture, not because your favourite literalists tell you to take it literally.

If you have another set of rules/principles that is better than this one, I would love to see it and add it to my list, or if you have your own so we could see and compare it, as well as compare your credential with Dwight Pentecost, and the others in that list.

Otherwise, your criticism of the list (and him) is unfounded IMHO.

 

[Mallon]

Is there a difference between questioning authenticity and questioning style?

You tell me. You're the one who made a big deal about parts of Genesis being fable.

 

[Hupomone10]

Here are a couple of indications the Genesis creation accounts should be understood as a metaphor.

(1) Genesis 2 describes a completely different order of creation to Genesis 1.
(2) Adam is Hebrew for Man or Mankind, which make perfect sense as an Everyman character in a parable describing the creation and fall of the human race.
(3) It is not just Adam's name being 'Man', his wife is called 'Woman'.
(4) Adam is referred to as 'them' Gen 1:26 and Gen 5:2 Male and female he created them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam.
(5) Eve being made from Adam's rib 'flesh of his flesh' is describe as the reason the sexual union makes husband and wife 'one flesh' Gen 2:24. This is an allegorical interpretation of the rib, which is found in the text of Genesis itself.
(6) We have Adam being told to check out the animals to look for a life partner. A wonderful allegorical description of how a man need good women to love cherish, but as a literal preparation for adult life and relationships it is pretty weird, not to say unscriptural.
(7) Being made of dust, or God forming us from clay, is a common biblical metaphor everywhere else in scripture.
(8) There is a talking snake described as a literal snake in Genesis 3 but we are told we are told in Revelation 12:9 & 20:2 the snake was not a beast of the field, but a spiritual being, a fallen angel called Satan.
(9) Our redemption is describe in terms of the redeemer stepping on this snake's head which never happened in the gospel, not literally anyway.
(10) Adam and Eve could have lived forever by from eating from a fruit tree, while Jesus said perishable food cannot give eternal life.
(11) If the Tree of Life was literal it would mean there is another source of everlasting life other than through Jesus and the cross. This does not make sense theologically.
(12) Alternatively, if the Tree of life was allegorical, it would be a beautiful picture of the Cross, 1Pet 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, and of Jesus himself who said he was the true Vine,
(13) Paul tells us he sees Adam as a figure of Christ in Romans 5:14 and through out his epistles interprets Adam and Eve as a picture of marriage or a picture of Christ and the Church.
(14) People back then were very used to parables and metaphors and would launch into extended metaphors without any explanation, the talking trees in Judges 9 or Gen 49:9 Judah is a lion's cub… 14 Issachar is a strong donkey, crouching between the sheepfolds… 27 Benjamin is a ravenous wolf…
(15) Genesis 6 uses a figurative interpretation of the creation of Adam to describe the flood Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out Adam whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." Adam, if he was literal, would have been dead by the time of the flood.
(16) We have cherubim with a supernatural sword guarding paradise, elsewhere in the bible cherubim are seen around the throne of God, or the holy of holies in the temple, which makes perfect sense if the garden of Eden is actually talking about heaven or is an allegory for the temple (or both since the temple was a picture of heaven).
(17) You find all the imagery from Genesis coming together again in another highly allegorical book, the book of Revelation where you have another husband and wife, the same talking snake, the tree of life planted by a river in the paradise of God (paradise is how the LXX translates 'garden' of Eden).
(18) Nowhere in the bible are the days of Genesis interpreted as literal days.
(19) Genesis 2:4 describes all of creation taking place in a single day.
(20) Genesis 2:17 says Adam would surely die the day he ate the fruit, which did not happen, so either day did not mean a literal day, or the death did not refer to literal physical death.
(21) Exodus 20:11 uses the days of Genesis not to teach a literal six day creation, but as a lesson in Sabbath observance, while Paul goes on to tell us the Sabbath is simply a shadow, an allegorical picture of Christ Col 2:16&17.
(22) In Exodus 31:17 God's seventh day rest is expanded: on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.
This cannot literally mean the God of Israel who neither slumbers nor sleeps was refreshed after a day's rest, however as an anthropomorphism, it is a beautiful metaphor describing God's identification with down trodden workers in the field, the child labourers and migrants workers who are also refreshed after their Sabbath rest Exodus 23:12 Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed. Refreshed literally refers to people who are exhausted getting their breath back. It is not a common word in the bible occurring only three times in the bible, so its occurrence referring to God's rest in Exodus 31:17 a few chapters after it refers to exhausted field workers is not coincidental.
(23) Days in the OT Law began in the evening Lev 23:32 from evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath. Yet the sabbath, if it is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, was because God set this particular day of the week aside as holy because it is the day he rested during the creation week. The problem is, the days in Genesis, if you take it as seven literal days, all begin in the morning. And there was morning and there was evening the third day - then you go on to the fourth day. So the Sabbath, if it is literally marking the day God set aside as holy at the creation, is out by 12 hours.
(24) Psalm 90:4, a psalm describing the creation, interprets God's days as like a thousand years, which hardly sounds like a literal interpretation of Genesis.
(25) The psalm goes on to interpret key imagery from Genesis Adam being returned to the dust, the flood, in terms of the fleetingness of human life, an allegorical interpretation.
(26) In Hebrews 3&4 God's seventh day rest is interpreted, not as a single day's break at the end of a six day creation, but as an ongoing rest we are to enter 'today' through the gospel.

Now while some of these points show the problems with a literal interpretation, others simply show how Genesis fits better if it is interpreted metaphorically, they are evidence it is a metaphor rather than evidence that it isn't literal.

Don't be.

Are these points things you came up with on your own, or are they from books that need to be referenced?

I'm asking so I can compare your sources with equal objectivity that you used I'm sure in evaluating Dwight Pentecost.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

Here are a couple of indications the Genesis creation accounts should be understood as a metaphor.

(1) Genesis 2 describes a completely different order of creation to Genesis 1.

Matthew 14 describes a different number of men fed (5,000) than Mark 8:9 does (4,000). Was the feeding of the thousands actually a metaphor that Jesus is the bread of life, a metaphor that didn't really happen? The fact that Moses compiled two separate accounts of creation, each having unique elements that the Holy Spirit in His sovereignty chose to include in the Word doesn't argue for it being a metaphor, any more than differences in gospel accounts argues for those with differences being metaphors.

(2) Adam is Hebrew for Man or Mankind, which make perfect sense as an Everyman character in a parable describing the creation and fall of the human race.

You're right. And? There are too many verses referencing Adam as an individual to even refute this point, but for ex: Luke 3:38 says in the tail end of the genealogy of Christ "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God". Are we to assume that Seth was the son of "Everyman?" Or are we to assume now that the genealogy also is a metaphor? Do you see how ridiculous this is once you go down this road? It is always better to become a student of the Word than to read the spin of man.

(3) It is not just Adam's name being 'Man', his wife is called 'Woman'.

2 Corinthians 11:3
"But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." Are we to believe now that the serpent deceived "Everywoman" alive at that time? Or even women in general? Let the ladies on the threads cry out ! Such gender bashing should not be tolerated.
1 Timothy 2:13
"For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." Now we see how far down this faulty road we have to go once we start on it. So, are we to believe now that "Every Man" was created first, then "Every woman?" I'll give you that it according to your interpretation, it's only referring to every man at that time. But still... That would certainly give horsepower to the homosexual movement! Imagine their glee at your interpretation. Nothing but a bunch of men running around naked! But then we would have a problem with the verse where Adam(s) first see their newly created women, and they tell us the Hebrew meaning of that phrase means "Wow!" We would have that "wow" coming back at the creation of the Adams, when they first saw each other! And the first sin wouldn't have been Eves eating the many pieces of fruit (if there are many Eves, then there are many pieces of fruit, and probably many serpents), but when the Adams argued with God about that thing that God said when he said there wasn't found a mate suitable for the Adams.

At any rate, forgetting the gay part, it's obvious if you take it to mean Adam plural you have to alter more of the story as well, for you can't have a lot of Adams without some Eve's to produce them. What a mess, but if this is the true translation, this is where we must go...

(4) Adam is referred to as 'them' Gen 1:26 and Gen 5:2 Male and female he created them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam.

Have you ever heard two people - a man and a woman - referred to as "him" or "her"?

(5) Eve being made from Adam's rib 'flesh of his flesh' is describe as the reason the sexual union makes husband and wife 'one flesh' Gen 2:24. This is an allegorical interpretation of the rib, which is found in the text of Genesis itself.

5. “If the literal meaning makes good sense in its connections, it is literal; but if the literal meaning does not make good sense, it is figurative.” You're thinking this rule applies, aren't you? But if you are, I suggest it is because you do not believe a person could be created from a small bit of human material, even though they cloned a sheep this way, didn't they? But that was Scientists that did that, not God. Certainly God couldn't do that. I suggest that the following rule applies:

7. “It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity.”
Words of scripture must be taken in their common meaning, unless shown to be inconsistent
with other words in the sentence,
with the argument or context, or
with other parts of Scripture.

(6) We have Adam being told to check out the animals to look for a life partner. A wonderful allegorical description of how a man need good women to love cherish, but as a literal preparation for adult life and relationships it is pretty weird, not to say unscriptural.

See previous posting on #(2)

(7) Being made of dust, or God forming us from clay, is a common biblical metaphor everywhere else in scripture.

1. In any passage the most simple sense – that which most readily suggests itself to an intelligent reader with competent knowledge – is usually the genuine sense or meaning.
7. “It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity.”
Words of scripture must be taken in their common meaning, unless shown to be inconsistent
with other words in the sentence,
with the argument or context, or
with other parts of Scripture.

I'll have to stop here for now. But I'll be back in a few hours (few 100,000 yrs, whichever interpretation you take)

 

[LexiLou]

Well, I would like to add one thing...Adam may or may not be a metaphor for mankind...We also have a geneology of Adam to Abraham in Genesis. So... (Or is it only to Noah?)

Lisa

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It wasn't addressed to me, but to ER.

I've had a hard enough time trying to keep up with those responding to me, much less read some of the longer ones and respond.

But if you wish, I'll try to do this tonight.


Just for you, sister !

Yes, please do. It wasn't addressed to you, but considering that the framework view is gaining increased acceptance among scholars in all interpretive camps, I think it warrants attention.

 

[Hupomone10]

Yes, please do. It wasn't addressed to you, but considering that the framework view is gaining increased acceptance among scholars in all interpretive camps, I think it warrants attention.

I found it interesting. I haven't heard or read anything on this before. I had to look up framework view and this is a short of what I found on Wikipedia, however accurate that is:

"The framework interpretation (also known as the literary framework view, framework theory, or framework hypothesis) is an interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis which holds that the seven-day creation account found therein is not a literal or scientific description of the origins of the universe; rather, it is an ancient religious text which outlines a theology of creation. The seven day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath commandment.

"The framework interpretation is held by many theistic evolutionists and some progressive creationists. While it had a precedent in the writings of the early church father St. Augustine, it has gained acceptance in modern times through the work of such theologians and scholars as Meredith G. Kline, Henri Blocher, and Bruce Waltke.

The framework view has been successful in the modern era because it resolves the traditional conflict between the Genesis creation narrative and science.

Despite enjoying the support of many biblical scholars, the framework interpretation is rejected by several widely read systematic theologians, including Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson, who deem it an unsuitable reading of the Genesis text."
Framework interpretation (Genesis) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(the parts underlined were of particular interest to me)
Actually, this is very close to the view I had as a young believer for about the first two years of my walk with the Lord. I was so deeply entrenched in science with nuclear power being my field and previously science fiction being one of my main interests that I just looked to the Genesis account for what I would call "spiritual truth."

Without knowing more about it, even though it is a noble goal to try to resolve the unresolvable conflict between creation and macro-evolution with its friend naturalism, I put a lot of stock in what the theologian Millard Erickson says on certain subjects. His theology book has been very helpful to me to further understand, clarify, and in some cases change my views toward some doctrines, and a very valuable resource in many debates with hyper-calvinists. I find him reliable; and if he has a problem with this view, I probably would, too. Erickson as far as I know has no affinity to the Creationist community nor any adverse feelings toward science. He's just a theologian that tries to follow the rules of interpretation. Not perfect, naturally, but reliable at least IMHO.

Beyond that, I posted the Principles of Interpretation because I do believe them to be an accurate grouping of the principles that have guided both translation and proper interpretation down through the centuries. A thorough look at those principles would show some problems with interpreting Genesis 1 that way.

I take literally the parts of scripture that do not give obvious indications they are figurative.

I don't have any criticisms of this view, though, for i don't know enough about it.

Of one thing I'm sure: when I stand before God on that Day, if any question were to come up about creation and my views on it, I would say, "my Lord, I believed You said and had recorded and preserved what You wanted to say; and I believed it as written. I trusted in Your Word and tried not to read into it things I didn't know were there."

I think He will be fine with that, even if it is a framework perspective or even the highly unlikely allegorical or metaphorical view. God has never faulted someone for believing His Word, with common sense employed of course.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

Here are a couple of indications the Genesis creation accounts should be understood as a metaphor.
(8) There is a talking snake described as a literal snake in Genesis 3 but we are told we are told in Revelation 12:9 & 20:2 the snake was not a beast of the field, but a spiritual being, a fallen angel called Satan.

indicating either of the possibilities I mentioned in another post, just for two possibilities: satan could have possessed a serpent, since demon possession is a documented thing in Scripture, and since man is an animal, it is understandable that the same satan that entered into Judas could also enter a snake. Second, he could have appeared as a serpent to Eve. Either of these, or other explanations are possible without doing damage to the text by violating clear principles of interpretation.

(9) Our redemption is describe in terms of the redeemer stepping on this snake's head which never happened in the gospel, not literally anyway.

I agree with you here. Within this narrative story is something that is figurative. All expositors I've read say this is the first prophecy of Christ crushing Satan. Christ was wounded through his suffering by Satan, but Satan had a deadly blow thrown at him by the Cross. you can live with a wound to the heel (Gen 3:15) but you can't live without a head (3:15). There are other narratives in Scripture where the story is very literal but a metaphor or figure is used. One is when Jesus drove the money-changers out of the temple. The pharisees right after that asked Him for a sign since He did such things. He told them "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19) The pharisees also missed the fact that a very literal thing could have been being discussed and have happened and Jesus answer in a figurative way. We know the driving out of the thieves is literal (unless you consider Jesus' entire life a metaphor) and yet the record of John the disciple states that they knew after His resurrection that he had spoken that day about the temple as his body. A metaphor, a figure, placed in the middle of a literal story. This is what the crushing of the serpent's head is: a symbolic statement of what would happen in the future placed into a very literal story.

(10) Adam and Eve could have lived forever by from eating from a fruit tree, while Jesus said perishable food cannot give eternal life.
(11) If the Tree of Life was literal it would mean there is another source of everlasting life other than through Jesus and the cross. This does not make sense theologically.

Genesis isn't the only place the Tree of Life shows up. Revelation refers to the Tree of Life being present in the New Heaven and New Earth also, not just in the Garden of Eden:
Rev 22:2
"On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit"
Rev 22:14
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city" Those who are in the New Jerusalem have already passed through the Judgment and have already washed their "robes" in the blood of Christ by trusting Christ as Savior. Why do we need the Tree of Life in the New Heaven and Earth? We may not know, but unless you believe the New heaven and New Earth to also be figurative, it is there and must be there for a reason. When one is born of the Spirit, his spirit is regenerated and given eternal life, but his body will still die. The eternal life to which Jesus referred in the verse you are referring to (Jesus said perishable food cannot give eternal life) is eternal life to the spirit of man, not to his body, for every person who has had eternal life had still died physically. And yet, Adam while dead in his sin is said to be able to live forever if he eats of it. It is possible that the Tree of Life had direct relation to the body, not the spirit.

(12) Alternatively, if the Tree of life was allegorical, it would be a beautiful picture of the Cross, 1Pet 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, and of Jesus himself who said he was the true Vine,

The Tree of Life is for life, not death. The Cross brings death and is a picture of death, death to Self, denial of Self:
Luke 9:23
"If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me"
Galatians 2:20
"I have been crucified with Christ"
Romans 6:5
"knowing this, that our old self has been crucified with him"
Galatians 5:24
"those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires"

It is the Resurrection that is a picture of life:
Romans 6:4
"so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life."

(13) Paul tells us he sees Adam as a figure of Christ in Romans 5:14 and through out his epistles interprets Adam and Eve as a picture of marriage or a picture of Christ and the Church.

But the things that are pictures of Christ are literal things. The spotless lamb was a real literal lamb, offered on the altar. Moses is a picture of Christ. Abraham's offer of Isaac is a picture of the Father offering the Son:
Hebrews 11:19
He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him (Isaac) back as a type"
Do you consider Isaac to be a metaphor and not a real person? Are you asking the readers here to consider Isaac a type and not a literal person? Moses? All the sacrifices made during the Old Covenant? If not, the fact that Adam is a type is insufficient reason to consider him to be figurative and not real. But the real evidence is in Scripture itself, Scripture being the best commentary on Scripture. In the same verse you mentioned, we find this:
Romans 5:14
"death reigned from Adam until Moses" So, are we to believe that Moses also is not a real person, but simply a metaphor or figure, since you would have us believe that Adam is such, based on this verse? This is in the same verse. Are we really willing to do such linguistic damage to the passage as to say that Moses is real but Adam is a metaphor just to support a presupposition we have?

Here are other statements in the same passage you chose for this point, all showing Adam as one person, and a real person:
Romans 5:12
"through one man sin entered into the world"
Romans 5:15
"if by the transgression of the one the many died"
"and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ," again, are we being asked to believe Adam is not real, but Jesus is real, and they are mentioned in the same sentence?
Romans 5:16
"the one who sinned"
"judgment arose from one transgression"
Romans 5:17
"by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one"
"will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" again, are we being asked to believe Adam is not real, but Jesus is real, and they are mentioned in the same sentence?
Romans 5:18
"through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men"
"through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men"
Romans 5:19
"through the one man's disobedience"
"through the obedience of the One"

A literal Jesus? a literal Adam. At least, this is the picture Paul is painting.

 

[Hupomone10]

(14) People back then were very used to parables and metaphors and would launch into extended metaphors without any explanation, the talking trees in Judges 9 or Gen 49:9 Judah is a lion's cub… 14 Issachar is a strong donkey, crouching between the sheepfolds… 27 Benjamin is a ravenous wolf…

1. “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
5. “If the literal meaning makes good sense in its connections, it is literal; but if the literal meaning does not make good sense, it is figurative.” 7. “It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity.”
(references given previously)

(15) Genesis 6 uses a figurative interpretation of the creation of Adam to describe the flood Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out Adam whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." Adam, if he was literal, would have been dead by the time of the flood.

Gen 6:7 NASB
The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created"
The translators, with degrees in Hebrew, Greek, etc, would disagree with you, understanding the principles of interpretation and knowing to call Adam by his name, Adam, in ch. 3, and to translate it "man" in ch. 6 when it is obviously talking about mankind.

Besides this, there are multiple times when the man who started a family or nation is used long after he is dead. The same thing is being done in Gen 6:7.
Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth."
Gen 41:52
"He (Joseph) named the second (son) Ephraim" (a literal son)
Psalm 78:9
"The sons of Ephraim were archers equipped with bows, Yet they turned back in the day of battle." (the descendants taking the name of the forefather as their tribe name.)
Isaiah 11:13
"Then the jealousy of Ephraim will depart, And those who harass Judah will be cut off; Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, And Judah will not harass Ephraim." (describing the descendants in the land of Ephraim as Ephraim long after the death of Ephraim. But Ephraim was a real person.)

There are many such examples of this principle, all of which refer to real literal persons.

(17) You find all the imagery from Genesis coming together again in another highly allegorical book, the book of Revelation where you have another husband and wife, the same talking snake, the tree of life planted by a river in the paradise of God (paradise is how the LXX translates 'garden' of Eden).

Yes you do. There are also You also have letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. Are we to believe these churches are metaphors, or real. (we know they existed from history, and archaeology). Everything that is ruined by the Fall is repaired in the last book of the Bible. That is exactly why Genesis is important. Genesis is referenced or alluded to at least 200 times in the New Testament (The Genesis Record, Dr. Henry Morris). This is why we should pay particular attention to interpret it according to accepted principles of interpretation, the same rules we use for interpreting the rest of the Bible, not adding the additional qualification of 'does it agree with scientists' latest hypotheses?"

 

[Assyrian]

Except that you are.

Wouldn't it be better to address the argument I have explaining to you that I am making, rather than the one you want to think I am making?

(the point to which you were directly referring to was my use of a day being indicated to be an evening and morning, to which you responded ... "metaphor?"

Hupomone: 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.

Assyrian: You're not allowed repetition in a metaphor?
​

The example below, using your own example, will show the flaw in this reasoning. Let me go back to what you said later:
To use your hermeneutic, how do you know then that the hour of the day in this obvious parable is referring to a literal day? It doesn't say that. Heck, it doesn't even clarify the day as Genesis does six times! So you have free license to assume, if there were only a reason from secular scientists bow to do so, that the hour of this day is not literal. He may have been teaching that a landowner sent laborers out every 300,000 years, because we know it's a metaphor, right?

Actually it is a parable. I would have thought the regular time checks, the reference to the worker' rate of pay for a day's labour, the reference to the workers experience of difficulty the day's work in the scorching heat is a pretty good clarification it was an actual day - within the parable. But it is when we look at the meaning of the parable, we see it is using the day figuratively.

But instead, we understand perfectly that when Jesus mentions the hour of the day within what is clearly a parable, even though He doesn't define the day as Genesis clearly does, that He is referring to a literal 24 hr day, even though it is imbedded in a parable.

It is interesting thought the arbitrary way you seem to decide the evening and mornings in the Genesis days are meant to 'define a day', (does Genesis say it is defining a day?) while the mention of morning and regular time checks and working in the blazing heat of the day are not.

The overall message is that the kingdom of God, over a long period of time, will have laborers sent out in the early stages, middle stages, and late stages. But within the parable, the hour of the day is taken literally, by me, and by you for it is your example.

Exactly. It is only a day within the parable. All your arguments that the days of Genesis have to be literal within the narrative fall apart if the narrative itself was not meant as a literal description of creation. Or each day could be a 'day of the Lord' metaphor and the evenings and morning be poetic illustrations of a metaphorical day.

BTW, a metaphor is something like "it took him all day to finish his homework", even though it didn't take literally all day. But if I had said "it took him all day to finish his homework; he started at 0700, still working at 1200, and he didn't stop until 7 am the next morning." Would you still think it was a metaphor?

Depends on whether it is from a note his Mum wrote to the school, or from the first chapter of a magical realist allegory.

This is an example of a metaphor, not a statement in the context of a historical document

Does it say Genesis 1 is part of a historical document, or are you just assuming this? Are modern concepts like 'historical document' even meaningful in such ancient literature as this?

calling something clearly, literally,

Sound like you are the one making assumptions here.

"the first day" and then going on just to make it clear by saying "and there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Assuming evening and morning were there to make it clear it was a literal day. This sound to me like an excuse made up to justify the literal interpretation rather than evidence it actually is literal, especially when you can have evenings and mornings in metaphors too.

But I realize you will not be convinced. It took a lot for me also. Anyway, we clearly see that you take it as literal when you want to, as shown in the very example you used, and don't when you don't want to.

I am actually quite happy that the text is open to different interpretations. The literal interpretation is a reasonable way to read the text. So are the various metaphorical and poetic interpretation. Or at least the literal interpretation was reasonable until we found out the earth was a lot more than six thousand years old. The same with the geocentric interpretations of scripture. All perfectly reasonable interpretations until found out the universe wasn't made that way. But once we have found this out, and we have other ways to interpret the text that don't contradict reality, why ever would we want to stick with the literal interpretation? If there are different possible interpretations and one of the is contradicted by the facts, then the simple obvious answer is to go with the interpretation that hasn't been contradicted.

This where Pentecost and pals come up with a completely new doctrine, the reason to keep interpreting Genesis literally is because of this new rule they have made up, that if there is any way to read the text literally, unless the text insists very clearly that it is a metaphor or parable, you must take it literally. What the church believed in the past was that if an interpretation of scripture is contradicted by new discoveries, then that interpretation was never what scripture actually meant, and that the real meaning of the text is found in one of the other interpretation, or even in a new interpretation no one has come up with yet.

and an argument from liberals and metaphoricists saying we should interpret the bible as allegory is hardly an argument either. That's why I included the footnotes of where Dwight Pentecost got this information. Whether you think you have shown he was reliable or not, which I question, to attack the principles in this list you need to attack the authors that said them, not the author that compiled them. That's like refuting something an atheist compiled of evolutionists simply because he's an atheist. But I think you know that; if you don't, now you do. Any attack will work, right? As long as they don't challenge you on it.

Blessings,
I'll get back to the long post in the next few hours (meaning a couple of hundred thousand years).
H.

Well Dwight Pentecost is responsible for what the authors he quotes say, and if you want to quote Pentecost on a discussion board, you are the one responsible to defend the claims you quote.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm glad you caught that.

It was meant to show him the nature of his question, as I explained below the small portion you quoted. And I content that the rest IS an answer to his question.

It certainly is an answer to the question of who the serpent was, but it wasn't an answer to Mallon's question. Neither Genesis nor Revelation say Satan possessed the snake or that he took the form of a snake. Genesis tells us it was a snake who tempted Eve, and God blamed the snake and held him personally responsible for his action "because you have done this..." In the story it is just a snake, punished as a snake for his actions. If it was a snake possessed by Satan, then there is no mention of it in Genesis and God punishes the wrong person, the snake rather than the one possessing him. Also as we have seen Revelation tells us the snake was Satan, not that he was possessed by Satan. You also have the problem that the promised redeemer was supposed to bruise the snake's head, but there is no sign of the snake that Satan possessed in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion. If it was Satan in the form of a snake, then you have an even bigger problem, because when we come across Satan again in the bible, he is not slithering on his belly and eating dust all the days of his life, Apparently God's curse on Satan didn't stick.

What Revelation tells us is that the snake was really Satan. He is a snake in the story, not because he transformed into a snake, but because in the story the snake is a metaphor for Satan. His curse as a snake in the story is a metaphor for God's humiliation and punishment of Satan for deceiving mankind, and when Genesis talks about the seed bruising the snake's head, it is really about Jesus defeating Satan on the cross.

If you have another set of rules/principles that is better than this one, I would love to see it and add it to my list, or if you have your own so we could see and compare it, as well as compare your credential with Dwight Pentecost, and the others in that list.

No I don't have another set of rules for you to obey, I learned to interpret scripture the way Jesus taught his disciples how to interpret it, through spending time becoming familiar with the all the parables and metaphors Jesus himself spoke and the parables, metaphors, symbols and allegory throughout scripture. Of course some of what Pentecost tells you is good, the need to look at context, but it is skewed and distorted by his agenda promoting literalism.

Otherwise, your criticism of the list (and him) is unfounded IMHO.

My criticism is based on the fact his explanation of allegory is a distortion contradicted by Paul's use of allegory in Galatians, and
because his man made rules of interpretation are bear no relation to God's love of speaking in metaphor and parable.

Are these points things you came up with on your own, or are they from books that need to be referenced?

I'm asking so I can compare your sources with equal objectivity that you used I'm sure in evaluating Dwight Pentecost.

Blessings,
H.

I am sure you will find some of the points in other books but the list is one I came up with myself from reading Genesis and seeing how it is interpreted in the rest of scripture. While I have used Hebrew lexicons and grammars as well, my main source is scripture, which is the best basis for evaluating both my list and Dwight's views.

 

[Hupomone10]

I am sure you will find some of the points in other books but the list is one I came up with myself from reading Genesis and seeing how it is interpreted in the rest of scripture. While I have used Hebrew lexicons and grammars as well, my main source is scripture, which is the best basis for evaluating both my list and Dwight's views.

I'm not going to continue the critique. It is clear to me by the first 16 that this is not what I'm looking for.If they are good enough for you personally then that's fine. They are not for me. These were easy to find the flaws in. As per my first post on this thread, I'm looking for a good commentary that defends this point of view to evaluate it. That's how I learn, by reading some of the best from both sides.

I plan to do the same thing regarding the end-times view of Preterism some day.

God bless,
H.

 

[Mallon]

As per my first post on this thread, I'm looking for a good commentary that defends this point of view to evaluate it. That's how I learn, by reading some of the best from both sides.

Check out John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One, Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation, Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation, and Paul Seeley's Inerrant Wisdom.