Evidence Genesis is just a fable

[miamited]

Hello Mallon,

You asked: Do you believe that the planet is immobile and rests on pillars, Ted?

Yes, the crust of the earth rests on pillars of the inner earth. You see, pillars are not a foundation, pillars are an integral part of a structure that are used for keeping various levels supported and in place. Yes, the pillars that support the crust of the earth and, in fact hold the entire ball of the earth together are so strong and so well built of God that they make the earth immovable by any power other than God's.

Now, you probably think of pillars as columns, but that isn't the only definition of pillar. There is a passage in the NT that refers to the first disciples as pillars (Gal. 2:9). Do I believe they were stone columns that held up a secondary level or roof? No, but the term pillar is used to describe something that is strong in that nature. Strong in that it holds up securely that which rests upon its top. It's called a metaphor and there seem to be plenty among us who understand that.

So, let's look at the creation account. There was evening and there was morning the first day. Tell me if you can, what is this metaphor describing. Just as the pillar metaphor describes something strong and sturdy that gives great support, what does the metaphor, there was evening and there was morning the first day, infer to us.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Mallon]

Hello Mallon,

You asked: Do you believe that the planet is immobile and rests on pillars, Ted?

Yes, the crust of the earth rests on pillars of the inner earth. You see, pillars are not a foundation, pillars are an integral part of a structure that are used for keeping various levels supported and in place. Yes, the pillars that support the crust of the earth and, in fact hold the entire ball of the earth together are so strong and so well built of God that they make the earth immovable by any power other than God's.

Now, you probably think of pillars as columns, but that isn't the only definition of pillar. There is a passage in the NT that refers to the first disciples as pillars (Gal. 2:9). Do I believe they were stone columns that held up a secondary level or roof? No, but the term pillar is used to describe something that is strong in that nature. Strong in that it holds up securely that which rests upon its top. It's called a metaphor and there seem to be plenty among us who understand that.

But you just advocated that repetition of a concept (e.g., 6 days of creation) affirms that it must be interpreted literally, not metaphorically. You're applying your own hermeneutical rules inconsistently. According to the rules you just provided, the earth must rest on literal pillars and literally must not move because the Bible repeatedly states as much.

Why are you contradicting yourself?

 

[Hupomone10]

The real discussion here is between two groups of people who realise the bible contains metaphors and parables, but one group claim you should only interpret a passage figuratively if is clearly labeled in the text as figurative.

I don't recall anyone saying you should only interpret a passage as figurative if it is "clearly labeled." There may be an individual here and there, but not a group.

Not "clearly labeled," but simply looking at the context and determining it is obviously a figure from the context. The metaphors and parables in the Bible do not always warn us they are coming. That's why we need to use our brain. We are to use our minds as well as listen to the Spirit's guidance. Our minds, not our emotions or our presuppositions we brought into the Christian walk from unrenewed worldly thinking. That's where established principles of interpretation come in. If a person doesn't follow established principles of interpretation, I realize I do not take his interpretation seriously, because he is more than likely interpreting only according to his own thinking. And in that case, he has made his own opinion the infallible authority in life.

But the biggest problem with the rule of interpretation is that it is simply not how the bible speaks.

The only problem with principles of interpretation is with those who don't want any principles to guide them. They want to determine the interpretation to fit their theological comfort box; and principles of interpretation established for centuries, tried and true, get in the way of that.

BTW, this was originally posted by me, not FencerGuy.

 

[Hupomone10]

"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; don't listen to him when he speaks in parables, because I the Lord your God only speak literally."

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; except for Genesis 1-3 and those verses by Paul where he refers to Adam as a person instead of as "Everyman." In those cases, please regard what the liberal theologians and scientists say as inspired, profitable, and form your doctrine from them."

 

[Hupomone10]

Neither Genesis nor Revelation say Satan possessed the snake or that he took the form of a snake.

I didn't say it did. I offered Mellon two possible answers to his question. It wouldn't matter even if Genesis or Revelation DID say that, for I believe you would discount it the way you discount the day in Genesis even though He spells out to you what it is: evening and morning, a day.

No I don't have another set of rules (for interpretation)

That is no surprise.

Judges 17:6
"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."

In these days, there is no King in men's hearts; every man interprets according to what is right in his own unrenewed mind.

 

[Assyrian]

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; except for Genesis 1-3

Because parables cannot possibly be profitable for reproof, correction and training in righteousness?

and those verses by Paul where he refers to Adam as a person instead of as "Everyman."

Unless Paul interpreted Adam figuratively. Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come. Or summed up the whole human race as two men Adam and Christ 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Or saw the entire human race summed up 'in Adam' and dying in Adam when we sin. 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. Sound kind of like "Everyman" to me.

In those cases, please regard what the liberal theologians and scientists say as inspired, profitable, and form your doctrine from them."

Because no one could be inspired by a parable. I mean what was Jesus thinking? If only he had Dwight Pentecost to explain to him how worthless metaphors are

 

[Assyrian]

I don't recall anyone saying you should only interpret a passage as figurative if it is "clearly labeled." There may be an individual here and there, but not a group.

What you said was

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

It means take everything literally unless it is so obviously a metaphor you cannot ignore it.

Not "clearly labeled," but simply looking at the context and determining it is obviously a figure from the context. The metaphors and parables in the Bible do not always warn us they are coming. That's why we need to use our brain.

So if it is not obvious, does that mean you stop using your brain?

What makes you think all the metaphors in the bible will be obvious to a 21st century American when people in Jesus own time were confused by his parables? What makes you think the standard for deciding what is metaphorical in scripture are the metaphors that are simply too obvious for you to ignore?

We are to use our minds as well as listen to the Spirit's guidance. Our minds, not our emotions or our presuppositions we brought into the Christian walk from unrenewed worldly thinking. That's where established principles of interpretation come in. If a person doesn't follow established principles of interpretation, I realize I do not take his interpretation seriously, because he is more than likely interpreting only according to his own thinking. And in that case, he has made his own opinion the infallible authority in life.

I must admit that is a great way to ignore other believers who aren't literalists like you, and a great way to protect you own literalism, but not a good way to learn about the bible.

The only problem with principles of interpretation is with those who don't want any principles to guide them. They want to determine the interpretation to fit their theological comfort box; and principles of interpretation established for centuries, tried and true, get in the way of that.

BTW, this was originally posted by me, not FencerGuy.

You said you were going to ignore the list of evidence I gave the Genesis was speaking figuratively, then FencerGuy joined in and I addressed his post.

 

[Assyrian]

I didn't say it did. I offered Mellon two possible answers to his question.

Actually they didn't answer his question either.

It wouldn't matter even if Genesis or Revelation DID say that, for I believe you would discount it the way you discount the day in Genesis even though He spells out to you what it is: evening and morning, a day.

Odd you should say that when as we have seen you are the one discounting how the rest of the bible interprets the days in Genesis.

Remember what I said about learning to understand metaphors in the bible through spending time with the metaphors parables and allegories in the bible? One of the most important keys was looking at how people writing the bible interpret the older texts. The references to the serpent God defeats from the OT to the book of Revelation were invaluable in understanding how we are to interpret Genesis.

That is no surprise.
Judges 17:6
"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."
In these days, there is no King in men's hearts; every man interprets according to what is right in his own unrenewed mind.

Are you saying the king we need ruling our hearts is Dwight Pentecost and his rules of interpretation?

 

[Assyrian]

sorry wrong place.

 

[shernren]

So, let's look at the creation account. There was evening and there was morning the first day. Tell me if you can, what is this metaphor describing. Just as the pillar metaphor describes something strong and sturdy that gives great support, what does the metaphor, there was evening and there was morning the first day, infer to us.

It's really quite simple. "Evening and morning", in that order, never refer to a whole day in the Bible; they refer specifically to the night. Here is what Moses wrote concerning the lamp outside the tent of meeting:

“You shall command the people of Israel that they bring to you pure beaten olive oil for the light, that a lamp may regularly be set up to burn. In the tent of meeting, outside the veil that is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening to morning before the Lord. It shall be a statute forever to be observed throughout their generations by the people of Israel." (Exod 27:20-21, ESV)
​

Lamps are only lit during the night; the parallel passage Lev 24:1-3 uses the same order of words. By contrast, the offering of the priesthood when they are anointed is offered during the day, and thus Moses says

“This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening." (Lev 6:20, ESV)
​

When the glory of the LORD rested on the tabernacle, it took different forms in the day and at night:

On the day that the tabernacle was set up, the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony. And at evening it was over the tabernacle like the appearance of fire until morning. So it was always: the cloud covered it by day and the appearance of fire by night. (Num 9:15-16, ESV)
​

"At evening ... until morning" is synonymous with at night.

By contrast, Moses judged the people in the desert during the daytime, not the nighttime. And it says of him that:

The next day Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from morning till evening. When Moses' father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning till evening?” (Exod 18:13-14, ESV)
​

Indeed, when the psalmist wants to express that he cries out all day long, he says:

​​​​​​​​Evening and morning and at noon I utter my complaint and moan, and he hears my voice. (Ps 55:17, ESV)
​

If it takes evening and morning and noon (that is, the day portion) to make a full 24 hours, then evening and morning are not a full 24 hours.

What are they, then? They are the night. And thus if we try to be hermeneutically consistent with both the usage of "evening and morning" in the rest of Scripture and a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, we are forced to conclude that God must be an incredible slacker! He doesn't work at night, it seems, which is pretty strange considering He's building an entire universe here. Furthermore, God neither slumbers nor sleeps (Ps 121:4), and the night is as day to Him (Ps 139:12), so what was He doing? Twiddling His thumbs? Catching up on sitcom reruns? Chitchatting with the angels? Writing up His notes for the next day?

This all leads us to the analogical day interpretation: God's days are like our days, but are not equal to our days. Physical night is no reason for God to stop work. But God in His creation describes both periods of activity and periods of rest, because He wants us to model our days around His.

How can we be sure that the days in Gen 1 aren't actually also physical days? Firstly, it would be peculiar for God to stop work particularly at night. More importantly, how could you have evening and morning without a sun or a moon, anyway? What's more, the seventh day doesn't have an evening and morning, which means that if we interpret them physically, then the seventh day didn't have a night, so when did night ever fall on the world again?

Indeed, this is precisely what the author of Hebrews picks up on in his exposition on the Sabbath. The seventh day is still ongoing, which clearly makes its being 24 hours long absurd. Otherwise, how could we enter into its rest?

For more info on analogical days, here's a useful summary website: http://www.peterwallace.org/essays/analogous.htm

 

[theFijian]

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; except for Genesis 1-3 and those verses by Paul where he refers to Adam as a person instead of as "Everyman." In those cases, please regard what the liberal theologians and scientists say as inspired, profitable, and form your doctrine from them."

Except nobody who is a TE (certainly among these parts) excludes Genesis 1-3 as you're suggesting, therefore you are simply constructing a straw man

 

[Jazer]

According to the rules you just provided, the earth must rest on literal pillars and literally must not move because the Bible repeatedly states as much.

The pillars of the earth represents people and the principles they teach to others. In this case the 12 tribes of Isreal. Look it up in the dictionary. That is why the rapture will bring about devastation to the world. You will remove the pillars or what holds it all up.

 

[Jazer]

But you just advocated that repetition of a concept (e.g., 6 days of creation) affirms that it must be interpreted literally, not metaphorically.

A day in the Bible is equal to 1000 years. The first chapter in the Bible covers the first 6 days then God rested on the 7 th day. Adam shows up on the 8th day. That of course was 6000 years ago. So the Bible begins 13982 years ago. This was the end of the last ice age. Science also tells us that one age came to an end and a new age began. There is always an end and a beginning, something ends and a new age, era or dispensation begins. God knows the end from the beginning. There is no conflict between the Bible and Science. It is not always easy to figure out how they work together, but they do.

We hear about the "end of the world" that just means one age or era ends and a new one begins. Soon we will begin the 14th day. A time when Jesus will rule and reign.

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

 

[Assyrian]

The pillars of the earth represents people and the principles they teach to others.

Go Metaphors!

 

[Assyrian]

A day in the Bible is equal to 1000 years. The first chapter in the Bible covers the first 6 days then God rested on the 7 th day. Adam shows up on the 8th day. That of course was 6000 years ago. So the Bible begins 13982 years ago. This was the end of the last ice age. Science also tells us that one age came to an end and a new age began. There is always an end and a beginning, something ends and a new age, era or dispensation begins. God knows the end from the beginning. There is no conflict between the Bible and Science. It is not always easy to figure out how they work together, but they do.

So the evening and morning of a thousand year day are what, metaphorical?

 

[Jazer]

Go Metaphors!

The referance is in Job and Psalms. Not in the 5 books of Moses.
Psalms is poetry, so you would expect to find Metaphors there.

1. Job 9:6
   He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
   Job 9:5-7 (in Context) Job 9 (Whole Chapter)
2. Psalm 75:3
   When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.
   Psalm 75:2-4 (in Context) Psalm 75 (Whole Chapter)

 

[Assyrian]

The referance is in Job and Psalms. Not in the 5 books of Moses.
Psalms is poetry, so you would expect to find Metaphors there.

1. Job 9:6
   He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
   Job 9:5-7 (in Context) Job 9 (Whole Chapter)
2. Psalm 75:3
   When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.
   Psalm 75:2-4 (in Context) Psalm 75 (Whole Chapter)

There is no poetry in the books of Moses?

 

[Jazer]

So the evening and morning of a thousand year day are what, metaphorical?

I don't know, I think it means they had a beginning and a end. Morning is the beginning of a day and evening is the end of a day. It does NOT mean day and night. He did create day and night on the first day.

"God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

Gen 1:5And God 430 called 7121 the light 216 Day 3117, and the darkness 2822 he called 7121 Night 3915. And the evening6153 and the morning 1242 were the first 259 day 3117.

 

[Jazer]

There is no poetry in the books of Moses?

Moses wrote some of the Poetry in the Psalms. Psalm 90 was written by Moses: 4 For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

 

[shernren]

Oh my goodness, it all makes sense now.

Since pillars are strong leaders in Galatians 2:9, pillars are strong leaders everywhere.

Jazer has just revolutionized biblical hermeneutics!

For example,

And when their hearts were merry, they said, “Call Samson, that he may entertain us.” So they called Samson out of the prison, and he entertained them. They made him stand between the pillars. And Samson said to the young man who held him by the hand, “Let me feel the pillars on which the house rests, that I may lean against them.” (Judg 16:25-26, ESV)
​

Then Samson, having laid his hands on the leaders of the Philistines, clobbered them senseless, thus bringing an end to the oppression of that time.

And again,

But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. (Gen 19:26, ESV)
​

That is, since she concerned herself with the welfare of Sodom and Gomorrah, unlike Lot who fled in cowardice, she went back and thus became a magnificent leader worth her salt.

And finally,

So early in the morning Jacob took the stone that he had put under his head and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the top of it. (Gen 28:18, ESV)
​

Not only can pillows become pillars, stones can become leaders! Now that explains why Jeremiah said that hearts of stone could become hearts of flesh, and why Jesus said God could make children of Abraham from stones if the Pharisees continued to reject Him, and why the rocks would cry out if the disciples did not rejoice at His triumphal entry.

Oh, the magnificent treasures of the Bible that are revealed by the simple act of making one's hermeneutic completely inflexible!