Evidence Genesis is just a fable

[Hupomone10]

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.

No, friend, it doesn't. It simply means what I said and nothing more.

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

No. I've already BEEN an evolutionist.

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?

Those that didn't recognize them; why do you think they were blind to them? Because they were uneducated? Or because they didn't know how to listen with their heart to the voice of the Holy Spirit?

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.

"but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. (Heb 4:2 NKJV) A good way to learn about the Bible is to read it, study it, believe it, practice it. But I could be wrong. :o

 

[Hupomone10]

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

Ask them if they believe what it says.

Hebrews 4:2
"but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it." (NKJV)

 

[Hupomone10]

A day in the Bible is equal to 1000 years...

No, my friend, you do err, not knowing the scriptures. It's not "a day in the Bible," it is "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Did you miss that second part also? A thousand years is also as a day. So, taking it as some on here such as yourself like to do, putting it together with the verse in 2 Peter totally taken out of context, the days of creation could just as easily be 1/1000th of a day, trying to tie verses together like that. It is obvious that the 2 Peter verse means that God isn't restricted by time, either direction. He isn't waiting for thousands of years until book 61 of 66 to clarify what a day is. For all who will listen, He clarified that six times back in the first book. That is called the "law of first mention." Often when Scripture mentions something new, it clarifies it in that first mentioning of it. Not every time, but often it does.

 

[Hupomone10]

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!

 

[miamited]

Hi Mallon,

You posted in reply: 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?

Oh, I absolutely agree and stand by my original conviction. My purpose here is to test yours. I fully and firmly believe and am convicted that the very purpose for God repeating clearly to us, because we are so thick headed and stiff necked, that there was an evening and a morning to each progressive 'day' of the creation is His way of telling us, "Look, I know this is going to be a hard concept for you to grasp, I understand that, and so here, let me further define for you that I'm using the word 'day' just as you will use it for the next thousands of years. I am not metaphorically using day as in, 'in that day' meaning a necessarily undefined period of time, eon or epoch. I am using the word day to define a period just as you think of as the period of time that begins with a morning and evening." You see, I am firmly convicted that God knows the future. That He knows that as our future becomes history His created will continue to deny the representation of His great power and glory by which He created all things. He knew long ago that there would come a particular period of time, a day, around 1900 years after His Son fulfilled all that he was commissioned to do, that men would begin arguing and bickering over the 'facts' of the creation account and so in His great wisdom He further defined for us his intended meaning. And then He did it again when He gave the law unto Moses.

God has honestly given His created ample 'proofs' that He intends the word day in the creation account to be a day, a single rotation of our planet. However, you insist that it is not necessarily to be considered such a day and so I'm asking, "OK, let's go with your hypothesis: What is the metaphor that, 'there was evening and there was morning the first, second, third, etc., day' to mean?

I gave an example: A pillar can mean a physical piece of a structure that supports another piece or it can metaphorically mean a thing, person, idea that soundly supports a plan or argument or other ideas. What is the metaphor, 'there was evening and there was morning' defined as in the dictionary of metaphors?

You see, as stated, I fully believe that this realm of creation was created with purpose. Nothing was left to just willy-nilly transform and become whatever nature would make it to be. As the Scriptures declare God has made everything, both seen and unseen through Jesus the Christ, for us. All that we behold from end to end of the endless universe was created and set in place in a mere blink of time for the purpose of supporting the earth as it spins throughout its courses for generation after generation throughout eternity, as a place for the flesh of man to live and to thrive and to be watched over and protected and provided for by the God who created us. It was all done in mere moments - days - by a God who has power that is obviously beyond the comprehension of those who deny that purpose and power.

Sure, we have scientists who have tested, divided, theorized and guesstimated many different ways that it could have been done and there are literally bzillions of folks who have turned to that -- and so God had written, 'there was evening and there was morning...'. Those who know Him and how much He loves us and wants us to know the truth of His power and purpose understand that all this creation is here for man. It was all set in place for man and it was all done, just as a bird builds her nest for her hatchlings only days before she is prepared to set her eggs. God spoke all that is in existence in five days and then after preparing the nest, He set man in his new home. He loved and nurtured that man until the rebellion turned man away from God. He has since, been working diligently to provide us with the 'proof' of who He is through the written testimony of His word and through His word given us the 'proof' of His love by making a way that we who will believe Him and trust Him and accept the sacrifice of His Son for our sin, can once again regain the paradise that was His initial intention.

However, let me caution you that Jesus said, "Unless a man be born again he cannot 'see' the kingdom of God." Unless we are born of the Spirit of God we cannot understand the power and glory and things of God. We cannot see how He has worked since the inception of this realm of creation to again set things right and so we follow the wisdom of man, because that is what our natural spirit desires. Look into the days of Noah and the days of Sodom and Gomorrha. All men had turned their backs on God. They paid no heed to His desires for them, but rather sought after the desires of their wicked hearts. Do you really believe that the nature of man has changed all that much? Why?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[theFijian]

Ask them if they believe what it says.
[/COLOR]

Translation: Ask them if they believe what I say it means

Hebrews 4:2
"but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it." (NKJV)

You do realise this verse refers to you as much anyone else

 

[Mallon]

Hi Mallon,

You posted in reply: 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?

Oh, I absolutely agree and stand by my original conviction. My purpose here is to test yours. I fully and firmly believe and am convicted that the very purpose for God repeating clearly to us, because we are so thick headed and stiff necked, that there was an evening and a morning to each progressive 'day' of the creation is His way of telling us, "Look, I know this is going to be a hard concept for you to grasp, I understand that, and so here, let me further define for you that I'm using the word 'day' just as you will use it for the next thousands of years. I am not metaphorically using day as in, 'in that day' meaning a necessarily undefined period of time, eon or epoch. I am using the word day to define a period just as you think of as the period of time that begins with a morning and evening." You see, I am firmly convicted that God knows the future. That He knows that as our future becomes history His created will continue to deny the representation of His great power and glory by which He created all things. He knew long ago that there would come a particular period of time, a day, around 1900 years after His Son fulfilled all that he was commissioned to do, that men would begin arguing and bickering over the 'facts' of the creation account and so in His great wisdom He further defined for us his intended meaning. And then He did it again when He gave the law unto Moses.

God has honestly given His created ample 'proofs' that He intends the word day in the creation account to be a day, a single rotation of our planet. However, you insist that it is not necessarily to be considered such a day and so I'm asking, "OK, let's go with your hypothesis: What is the metaphor that, 'there was evening and there was morning the first, second, third, etc., day' to mean?

I gave an example: A pillar can mean a physical piece of a structure that supports another piece or it can metaphorically mean a thing, person, idea that soundly supports a plan or argument or other ideas. What is the metaphor, 'there was evening and there was morning' defined as in the dictionary of metaphors?

You see, as stated, I fully believe that this realm of creation was created with purpose. Nothing was left to just willy-nilly transform and become whatever nature would make it to be. As the Scriptures declare God has made everything, both seen and unseen through Jesus the Christ, for us. All that we behold from end to end of the endless universe was created and set in place in a mere blink of time for the purpose of supporting the earth as it spins throughout its courses for generation after generation throughout eternity, as a place for the flesh of man to live and to thrive and to be watched over and protected and provided for by the God who created us. It was all done in mere moments - days - by a God who has power that is obviously beyond the comprehension of those who deny that purpose and power.

Sure, we have scientists who have tested, divided, theorized and guesstimated many different ways that it could have been done and there are literally bzillions of folks who have turned to that -- and so God had written, 'there was evening and there was morning...'. Those who know Him and how much He loves us and wants us to know the truth of His power and purpose understand that all this creation is here for man. It was all set in place for man and it was all done, just as a bird builds her nest for her hatchlings only days before she is prepared to set her eggs. God spoke all that is in existence in five days and then after preparing the nest, He set man in his new home. He loved and nurtured that man until the rebellion turned man away from God. He has since, been working diligently to provide us with the 'proof' of who He is through the written testimony of His word and through His word given us the 'proof' of His love by making a way that we who will believe Him and trust Him and accept the sacrifice of His Son for our sin, can once again regain the paradise that was His initial intention.

However, let me caution you that Jesus said, "Unless a man be born again he cannot 'see' the kingdom of God." Unless we are born of the Spirit of God we cannot understand the power and glory and things of God. We cannot see how He has worked since the inception of this realm of creation to again set things right and so we follow the wisdom of man, because that is what our natural spirit desires. Look into the days of Noah and the days of Sodom and Gomorrha. All men had turned their backs on God. They paid no heed to His desires for them, but rather sought after the desires of their wicked hearts. Do you really believe that the nature of man has changed all that much? Why?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi Ted,

You wrote a whole lot, but never came close to addressing my original question to you, so I'll ask again: If repetition of a concept in the Bible attests to the literalness of that concept, do you believe that the earth literally does not move (i.e., does not spin, revolve, or rotate in space) and that it sits on literal pillars (defined as "a tall vertical structure of stone , wood, or metal, used as a support for a building, or as an ornament or monument")? I would appreciate a straightfoward answer to this question.

 

[Assyrian]

No, friend, it doesn't. It simply means what I said and nothing more.

Thanks for clarifying that.

No. I've already BEEN an evolutionist.

The odd thing is, while you talk of using your brain and listening to the Holy Spirit, I don't see any room for either following Pentecost's rules. Either the text has such obvious indications it is a metaphor that you can't deny the fact, in which case interpret it metaphorically, otherwise you have to interpret it literally. No thought required, and nowhere for the Holy Spirit to get a word in edge ways other than leading you to his prophet Dwight Pentecost to give you his rules.

Those that didn't recognize them; why do you think they were blind to them? Because they were uneducated? Or because they didn't know how to listen with their heart to the voice of the Holy Spirit?

Which is why we learn how to recognise how God is speaking by familiarity with his word and by letting the Holy Spirit transform our hearts and minds. Even the Corinthian believers baptised in the Holy Spirit were still struggling to understand the things of the Spirit. They needed their hearts transformed. Do you really think a set of rules is a substitute for this?

You haven't dealt with the big problem I brought up. Pentecost's rules of interpretation is based on what is clearly metaphorical to you. That is nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, but simply what comes across to a 21st century English speaking American as has-to-be-metaphorical, when it was spoken in a completely different age, language and culture, and wasn't even clearly metaphorical to people of the same time and culture. Why do you think your 21st American perspective will be better at telling you what is metaphorical?

And why do you assume metaphors in the bible are always clearly metaphorical?

"but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. (Heb 4:2 NKJV) A good way to learn about the Bible is to read it, study it, believe it, practice it. But I could be wrong. :o

Except neither of us approach the bible that way. You missed out a step
read it, study it, [missing steps] believe it, practice it.
for you the missing steps are
follow Pentecost's rules and take the text literally
For me it is
try to understand what the text is saying and what God is saying to us through it.

 

[Assyrian]

Ask them if they believe what it says.

Hebrews 4:2
"but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it." (NKJV)

Oddly enough the writer is using God's seventh day rest as a picture of the gospel that we enter by faith and ceasing from our works. Faith, apparently, is nothing to do with literalism, it is seeing beyond the literal meaning, God took a day off long time ago, and putting our faith in what God gives us as a metaphorical promise of the gospel rest.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

No what evening and morning men isn't night and day, it is the beginning of the night and the beginning of the day, literally duck and day break. Of course they can be used to refer the beginning and end of longer periods, but it is a metaphorical use.

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.

One of my favourite psalms. It is interesting you are taking a non literal use of day from the psalms and using it as a metaphorical interpretation of day in Genesis. I am all for it. Go Metaphors!

 

[shernren]

I fully and firmly believe and am convicted that the very purpose for God repeating clearly to us, because we are so thick headed and stiff necked, that there was an evening and a morning to each progressive 'day' of the creation is His way of telling us, "Look, I know this is going to be a hard concept for you to grasp, I understand that, and so here, let me further define for you that I'm using the word 'day' just as you will use it for the next thousands of years.

Now that's a funny way to interpret repetition in the Bible. Can you give me any other example where nearly word-for-word repetition - refrains, in other words - are used to drive home otherwise unacceptable ideas?

I mean, just try it out on Psalm 136. Surely God has the psalmist repeat "His love endures forever" because the idea that God loves me is difficult to grasp and impossible to accept, and that if I were to see it only once in the psalm (as, for example, in David's psalm in 1 Chronicles 16), I would be inclined not to interpret it literally but to believe that it is a metaphor for something. Maybe for the burning lake of fire - that's forever, isn't it?

See, your personal convictions do not make sense within the text of Scripture itself. (Or did God pass you some amendments to the canon that He forgot to tell the rest of us about?)

Furthermore:

I am using the word day to define a period just as you think of as the period of time that begins with a morning and evening.

Except that God did not say that each day began with a morning and an evening. He said: "and there was evening, and there was morning" - which, as my post #150 shows, always refers in Scripture specifically to the night.

It is ironic that the strongest supporters of a "literal" interpretation are also the first to twist the order of the words in Genesis 1 to their own liking. Because Genesis 1 isn't indicating to us that the whole process of creation in each day began in the morning and ended in the evening. Genesis 1 is indicating to us that God created, and then night came, and then the next day God created some more, and then night came, and then ...

Again, my post #150 shows that taking this literally creates problems within the text of Scripture itself. Furthermore, a figurative interpretation of the days as being analogical finds support from within the text of Scripture itself. I made not one reference to the "guesstimates" of science in that post, simply to the book of Hebrews.

You may want to refer back to that post and see if it addresses your issues.

 

[Hupomone10]

Translation: Ask them if they believe what I say it means


You do realise this verse refers to you as much anyone else

No, I do.

You might want to read and reflect on what the verse says before saying that.

It emphasizes walking by faith rather than primarily by self-thinking.

Hebrews 4:2
"but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with study of secular science in those who heard it." (NToEV)

Oops, sorry; I mistranslated.

Hebrews 4:2
"but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it." (NKJV)

 

[Hupomone10]

The odd thing is, while you talk of using your brain and listening to the Holy Spirit, I don't see any room for either following Pentecost's rules. Either the text has such obvious indications it is a metaphor that you can't deny the fact, in which case interpret it metaphorically, otherwise you have to interpret it literally. No thought required, and nowhere for the Holy Spirit to get a word in edge ways other than leading you to his prophet Dwight Pentecost to give you his rules.

1 Corinthians 13:12
"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

I recognize that this language about the mirror or looking glass is figurative to illustrate the point made above it. So, all I can say brother, is that your attempt to exaggerate my view is simply that, an exaggeration.

This one is obvious in the text; and the text doesn't have to call it a metaphor. You attempt at exaggerating my view is a normal reaction, but it is incorrect. Further, if I did have a question and used the principles of interpretation, I would come up with the same interpretation.

Which is why we learn how to recognise how God is speaking by familiarity with his word and by letting the Holy Spirit transform our hearts and minds. Even the Corinthian believers baptised in the Holy Spirit were still struggling to understand the things of the Spirit. They needed their hearts transformed. Do you really think a set of rules is a substitute for this?

I agree with you; which is why I didn't say it is a substitution for the guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit. You will search in vain to find that in my posts. But God does use the written Word, placed into our minds, for the Holy Spirit to use. He also uses the milk of the Word, pre-digested by godly men and women given to the Church as teachers. We always have to take anything they write with a grain of salt, learning to depend on the Holy Spirit to help us separate the fish from the bones; but all through Christian history and through the New Testament the apostles encouraged getting help from those who knew the Lord deeply.

I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where we are encouraged to abandon what godly men/women say interpreting what Scripture really means in favor of what secular man has to say. Not when it comes to clear excerpts of history or clear teachings. If someone in the Bible seems to give the impression he believes the earth is flat, that is still not actively teaching a principle that the earth is flat. There is a difference. I'm sure you would say this applies to Genesis, though. I do understand your point of view; I just disagree with it.

And why do you assume metaphors in the bible are always clearly metaphorical?

I showed you an example above where what you are saying is not the case about me. You seem to like taking what I say and placing extremes on it. Because I take the Creation account literally and have a good set of guidelines for interpretation, which were not even devised with strictly Genesis in mind but the entire Word of God, you try to make me out to say that metaphors in the Bible are "always" metaphorical.

"The devil lives in the extremes."

Except neither of us approach the bible that way. You missed out a step
read it, study it, [missing steps] believe it, practice it.
for you the missing steps are
follow Pentecost's rules and take the text literally
For me it is
try to understand what the text is saying and what God is saying to us through it.

For me it is pray about it, learning to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit in my spirit, take my own thinking with a grain of salt and take the writings of others with a grain of salt, especially if they glorify intellect above faith in God's Word. But still, listen to what they say so that you don't make your own opinion the infallible authority. Being a disciple means to be a 'learner.' A disciple's opinions are maybe what must guide his life, but he doesn't regard them as infallible.

(and please, before you respond: I said "above", not "in place of".)

 

[Mallon]

What do you make of the fact that Luther used your rules of interpretation to argue that the sun revolves around the earth, Hupomone?

 

[JoeyArnold]

I still have no idea what you're asking or how it relates to our discussion.

The writer, to Genesis, uses the same word for "Day" in creation (in Genesis) as he used for other words for "Day" or "Days" found in the other chapters of Genesis & throughout the whole entire Bible (to an extent). It was also understood that way too.

 

[JoeyArnold]

That question was already answered here in detail by GratiasCorpusChristi and Assyrian.

Give me a summary to why & how Creation is merely a fable.

 

[JoeyArnold]

not in a satisfactory manner.....

All we know for sure is that God probably wasn't speaking literally when He said that the seed of the Woman would crush the head of the Serpent

When you hear the words, "The woman will crush the head or tail of the serpent," do you think figuratively? When you hear the words, "Evening & Morning," you think, "That has nothing to do with Jewish tradition that a day starts in the evening & ends the next evening." When you hear, "Israel marched around the walls of Jericho for six or seven days," you think, "Oh, just like in Creation..... this is figurative, too... they actually marched around the walls for seven million years, just like the six days of creation means evolutionary billions of years."?

 

[Melethiel]

Give me a summary to why & how Creation is merely a fable.

So you admit that you didn't bother to read the detailed explanations already put forth? In case you missed it, post #20 goes into great detail about why your strawman doesn't hold.

You won't get an answer as to why "Creation is merely a fable," because that is a strawman view that few, if any, people here hold. If you really want to know why the text demands a non-literal interpretation (I don't think "metaphor" is quite the right word either), you can go back and read those posts.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Of course not. After all, the Bible repeatedly says that the earth is immobile (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 104:5) and that it sits on pillars (Job 9:6, 38:4, Psalm 75:3). And now we all know that when exercising sound biblical hermeneutics, repetition is always a sign that God means it literally. Right? That's what you guys have been arguing with respect to the six days of creation, after all.

Is there a difference between Genesis & Psalms, Proverbs, poetic & wisdom books?

 

[Melethiel]

When you hear the words, "The woman will crush the head or tail of the serpent," do you think figuratively? When you hear the words, "Evening & Morning," you think, "That has nothing to do with Jewish tradition that a day starts in the evening & ends the next evening." When you hear, "Israel marched around the walls of Jericho for six or seven days," you think, "Oh, just like in Creation..... this is figurative, too... they actually marched around the walls for seven million years, just like the six days of creation means evolutionary billions of years."?

If only we actually thought that "seven days is actually seven millions of years." We fully admit that the days are actual days within the context of the story. What we disagree about is what message that story is meant to convey.