Explain the analogies

[seebs]

Just for the record, it is not a strawman view I have been presenting.

Yes, it is.

A Genesis is an analogy concept calls for the events presented in Genesis to be an analogy.

Right. So, they would be a way of explaining things to us, and the historical facts would be wrong, but the substance would be right. "God made the world" and "humans sin" both hold up just fine, with or without talking snakes and apples.

 

[Ark Guy]

It's been interesting watching you Theo-Evos sink on this issue.

BTW:Seebs, it not a strawman. Get over it.

Tell me, how and when did man fall?

 

[seebs]

It's been interesting watching you Theo-Evos sink on this issue.

It's been interesting watching you make false claims about what we believe.

BTW:Seebs, it not a strawman. Get over it.

I claim A. You say "Seebs claims B, which is wrong for the following reasons". That's a straw man.

Tell me, how and when did man fall?

I don't know, and I don't need to know; the evidence that it has happened is right here in front of me, and I don't really need to know every detail of all of Creation to believe in the parts I can see.

 

[Ark Guy]

Well seebs you certainly don't believe the parts of creation that God has told us about.

 

[seebs]

Well seebs you certainly don't believe the parts of creation that God has told us about.

I don't believe the same things you do about them, but the facts are obvious; the world exists, and there is sin in it. What do I care how many days or years it took? I'm here now, and God is here now, and the rest is irrelevant.

 

[Ark Guy]

I don't believe the same things you do about them, but the facts are obvious; the world exists, and there is sin in it. What do I care how many days or years it took? I'm here now, and God is here now, and the rest is irrelevant.

It's obvious..duh.

The bible says man was created from the dust then woman from mans side..that is the original 2 people. You say this part is not real.

Between you and me...I'll believe the bible.

now I'll ask you the same question that asked notto....where does the bible say there is sin in the world? How do you recognize sin to make you accusations?

 

[seebs]

It's obvious..duh.

The bible says man was created from the dust then woman from mans side..that is the original 2 people. You say this part is not real.

No, I don't.

See, right here is where you go wrong. You have mistaken "allegory" and "analogy" for "not real". When my mom went to the hospital, she really did have something, even though the words used to explain it to me when I was a kid are not literal facts. The substance of the message was true.

now I'll ask you the same question that asked notto....where does the bible say there is sin in the world? How do you recognize sin to make you accusations?

The Bible says things like "all men have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". It says this all over.

But what do I care? The Bible doesn't need to say it. It's OBVIOUS.

 

[Ark Guy]

seebs posted the following:

The Bible says things like "all men have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". It says this all over.

Why should I believe this?
What makes it true?

From what the book of Geneis tells me, this sin you speak of is not real. The fall was a myth. It's just a simple analogy or parable.

 

[seebs]

seebs posted the following:

The Bible says things like "all men have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". It says this all over.

Why should I believe this?
What makes it true?

That it's obvious.

From what the book of Geneis tells me, this sin you speak of is not real. The fall was a myth. It's just a simple analogy or parable.

You seem to be having a comprehension problem.

There are two claims here:
1. Men are sinful.
2. This particular story explains how men came to be sinful.

If I reject the second claim, I can still hold the first. You want an example?

Let us imagine that we read one of Kipling's "Just-so Stories", and we find out how the leopard got his spots. In the story, we are told that the leopard got his spots because a shaman daubed him with ink, so that he could hunt more effectively in the dappled light of the jungle.

We observe that, indeed, leopards have spots, so we come to believe the story.

Later, we find out that there is a flaw in the story; in fact, the story is not true!

Does this mean we then reject the evidence of our senses, and declare that leopards have no spots?

You seem to think it should.

 

[Ark Guy]

tell me seebs, why should I believe that all men have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God?

You seemed to skip that question.

Now considering the leopards spots scenario....why would God present an untruth as truth? Why would God write a flaw into his account of creation? What other flaws does the bible contain?

Was the resurrection a flaw that will be discovered later on?

 

[Ark Guy]

seebs posted the following:
1. Men are sinful.
2. This particular story explains how men came to be sinful

Beep beep back the truck up....is the story true or not? was Adam, Eve, the garden, serpent and tree real or not? One breath you argue they wern't then in the next you seem to claim they actually happened.

 

[seebs]

tell me seebs, why should I believe that all men have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God?

Because you can observe it in the world around you with your own senses.

Now considering the leopards spots scenario....why would God present an untruth as truth? Why would God write a flaw into his account of creation? What other flaws does the bible contain?

That's a very interesting question.

One way to approach it is to look at the reasons for which we have the concept of "analogy" and "allegory". Often, when a concept is difficult to understand, presenting related concepts may be easier. One of the people in the parenting forum commented, once, that there was a period in her children's life when they learned that definite times were different from indefinite ones, so if you said something was "soon", they would keep asking when it would happen, but if you said "Tuesday", they would stop. They didn't know whether "Tuesday" was in five minutes, or in a year; they just knew it was sometime in the future, and that it wouldn't get sooner by them asking.

The question, I think, is this. We have a bunch of words describing the creation of the universe. How can we best understand them? There are many layers of meaning here; for probably three thousand years, maybe longer, the Jews have studied these words, and found many meanings in them.

What appears to be the most important part of the story is the depiction of the relationship between humanity and God; God is Creator, we are created. God is perfect, we are not. God is unable to perceive people if they hide from him.... Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense. Why does God ask Adam where he is? He presumably knew. What does this tell us? It tells us that God knows more than He lets on; that He sometimes encourages us to work through things ourselves.

The next question is, of these many interpretations, which one is the "right" one? Is only one of them true? Are all of them true?

For two or three thousand years, we understood these messages about the nature of our relationship with God to be crucial, and the way it was presented, a very poetic and rigidly structured story with all the markers of mythology, to be irrelevant to those questions.

Then, people came up with the idea of inverting this; instead of focusing on the foundational messages about the nature of God, they say, we should focus on the interpretation of this story as plain literal truth, ignoring all the symbolism, ignoring the meaning, ignoring the entire reason God put this there.

Why, I ask, should we care how the universe came to be? What bearing does it have on our salvation? None at all. We are here, now; God is here, now. We can be saved or not. The past is not that important. But the message of Genesis is important; it tells us who God is.

Was the resurrection a flaw that will be discovered later on?

I don't think so.

 

[Ark Guy]

Concerning sin, seebs posted the following when asked how we know sin exists;

Because you can observe it in the world around you with your own senses

What makes sin sin? Just because you think sin is this or that doesn't make it sin.
Where/what is your standard to measure right and wrong against?

 

[seebs]

seebs posted the following:
1. Men are sinful.
2. This particular story explains how men came to be sinful

Beep beep back the truck up....is the story true or not? was Adam, Eve, the garden, serpent and tree real or not? One breath you argue they wern't then in the next you seem to claim they actually happened.

You've almost got it.

The thing which happened is real.
The details of the explanation are not.

Conclusion: Some other explanation must be the true explanation.

 

[seebs]

What makes sin sin? Just because you think sin is this or that doesn't make it sin.
Where/what is your standard to measure right and wrong against?

It appears to be inherent in people. I theorize that it is, as the Bible suggests, God's law written on our hearts. (And yes, I mean "hearts" idiomatically; I don't think that surgeons regularly have to carefully cut around the commandments written on the heart.)

 

[Ark Guy]

Because you can observe it in the world around you with your own senses.



That's a very interesting question.

One way to approach it is to look at the reasons for which we have the concept of "analogy" and "allegory". Often, when a concept is difficult to understand, presenting related concepts may be easier.

What is so difficult to understand in this instance?

One of the people in the parenting forum commented, once, that there was a period in her children's life when they learned that definite times were different from indefinite ones, so if you said something was "soon", they would keep asking when it would happen, but if you said "Tuesday", they would stop. They didn't know whether "Tuesday" was in five minutes, or in a year; they just knew it was sometime in the future, and that it wouldn't get sooner by them asking.

Why would God not say long periods of time instead of six days? Why would God not say we came from more primitive life forms?

The question, I think, is this. We have a bunch of words describing the creation of the universe. How can we best understand them?

How about just reading them. Whats so hard about that? Six days means six days...dust means dust

There are many layers of meaning here; for probably three thousand years, maybe longer, the Jews have studied these words, and found many meanings in them.

And you studied them and found out that it really wasn't six days..the bible was wrong after all. but we all know that the bible can't be wrong...so it must be some sort of analogy, myth.

What appears to be the most important part of the story is the depiction of the relationship between humanity and God; God is Creator, we are created. God is perfect, we are not. God is unable to perceive people if they hide from him.... Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense. Why does God ask Adam where he is? He presumably knew. What does this tell us? It tells us that God knows more than He lets on; that He sometimes encourages us to work through things ourselves.

Is that what that vverse means ?

The next question is, of these many interpretations, which one is the "right" one? Is only one of them true? Are all of them true?

Considering they contradict each other..they all can't be true.

For two or three thousand years, we understood these messages about the nature of our relationship with God to be crucial, and the way it was presented, a very poetic and rigidly structured story with all the markers of mythology, to be irrelevant to those questions.[/quote]

hmmmm the early christians took Genesi as very literal. Their style of writing and words prove that. They never even hint about some form of analogy or myth. Are we so much smarter than them?

Then, people came up with the idea of inverting this; instead of focusing on the foundational messages about the nature of God, they say, we should focus on the interpretation of this story as plain literal truth, ignoring all the symbolism, ignoring the meaning, ignoring the entire reason God put this there.

What???? The story was always taken as plain literal truth. I just mentioned above that the early christians took Genesis as plain literal truth.

Why, I ask, should we care how the universe came to be? What bearing does it have on our salvation?

The argument has been made an accepted by many that if Genesis is a myth, then so is sin. If sin is a myth then why do we need Christ? Those peopl have no salvation. So as you see this religion of evolutionism can be very dangerous.

None at all. We are here, now; God is here, now. We can be saved or not. The past is not that important. But the message of Genesis is important; it tells us who God is.

The past is very important. If it didn't happpen...then who cares?

 

[Ark Guy]

I have been wondering about you seebs.....you use the bible to tell us all men sin and fall short of the glory of God.
You use the bible to tell us that Gods laws are written in our hearts and you probably use the bible to answer many more questions.

But I have to laugh at you (and notto)...when I use the bible to show you Adam was made from the dust and not evolved from some primate....you don't trust it. You throw that particular portion of the Word of God into the trash.

You're a pick and chooser.
You filter your bible through mans fallible science. Don't ya?

1CO 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

This is what the bible says seeb...I didn't write it. And like you, I certainly don't need to re-write it.

Now of course, you need to tell me why this sin stuff you quote should be trusted and not the special creation stuff in the bible?

 

[seebs]

Why would God not say long periods of time instead of six days? Why would God not say we came from more primitive life forms?

Does it matter in any way?

I don't even know whether God actually said that, or whether people wrote it down because it was what they believed.

How about just reading them. Whats so hard about that? Six days means six days...dust means dust

Death means death. Adam died the day he ate the fruit. That's why he and Eve never had any children.

The moment you see a problem, you switch to symbolism.

And you studied them and found out that it really wasn't six days..the bible was wrong after all. but we all know that the bible can't be wrong...so it must be some sort of analogy, myth.

Actually, I knew about the age of the earth, and I had read dozens of other creation stories, so when I read the Bible, I knew what I was looking at.

Considering they contradict each other..they all can't be true.

Very good.

hmmmm the early christians took Genesi as very literal. Their style of writing and words prove that. They never even hint about some form of analogy or myth. Are we so much smarter than them?

Well, we certainly know more about the structure of the universe... But in fact, you've repeatedly refused to read what either Augustine or the Jews wrote about Creation.

What???? The story was always taken as plain literal truth. I just mentioned above that the early christians took Genesis as plain literal truth.

You keep saying it, but it's not true. The story was always read primarily for its symbolism and religious meaning. Augustine points out that the "days" of creation cannot possibly be "days" as we understand it. Another thousand years of Jewish sages before him have commentary on how to understand Genesis.

The argument has been made an accepted by many that if Genesis is a myth, then so is sin.

So? Lots of bad arguments are accepted. That particular one is false, however, so I don't accept it.

If sin is a myth then why do we need Christ? Those peopl have no salvation. So as you see this religion of evolutionism can be very dangerous.

Except that evolution isn't a religion.

What's dangerous? What's dangerous is the lie that, if Genesis is a myth, then there's no such thing as sin. That's the lie; that's the thing that's dangerous.

Drop that non-sequitur, and suddenly you find that everything works, no matter how old the earth is.

The past is very important. If it didn't happpen...then who cares?

I don't always need to know exactly what happened to accept the outcomes.

 

[seebs]

I have been wondering about you seebs.....you use the bible to tell us all men sin and fall short of the glory of God.
You use the bible to tell us that Gods laws are written in our hearts and you probably use the bible to answer many more questions.

I generally use it as a guide to faith and morals, yes.

But I have to laugh at you (and notto)...when I use the bible to show you Adam was made from the dust and not evolved from some primate....you don't trust it.

I do not trust the Bible on matters of science, because it isn't about science.

I don't believe that bats are birds, that mustard seeds are the smallest seeds, that there are four-footed birds, that there are four-footed insects, that rabits chew cud, that the earth has corners, that the sun moves around the earth, that women are made from ribs, that it is necessary to burn a house to eliminate mildew, or that most diseases are caused by "spirits" rather than "germs".

You throw that particular portion of the Word of God into the trash.

Please stop blaspheming. Jesus is the Word. The Bible is a book. The Bible is not Jesus.

You're a pick and chooser.

Not really. I have a very simple rule; the Bible is good on questions of faith and morals. It doesn't address science or mathematics.

You filter your bible through mans fallible science. Don't ya?

No. The Bible, as I understand it, makes only claims of faith and morals; the other stuff is historical accretion, and not relevant to the message God intended us to have.

This is what the bible says seeb...I didn't write it. And like you, I certainly don't need to re-write it.

But you do need to learn to be aware of how you interpret it.

Now of course, you need to tell me why this sin stuff you quote should be trusted and not the special creation stuff in the bible?

Because:

1. It is directly observable in the world around us, using our own senses.
2. The Bible speaks reliably on matters of faith and morals.

 

[Ark Guy]

Well folks, looks like seebs still has some problems understanding scripture..
Here's what he wrote:

Death means death. Adam died the day he ate the fruit. That's why he and Eve never had any children

GEN 3:20
GEN 4:1
GEN 4:2
GEN 4:25
GEN 5:3
GEN 5:4

Ah, whatever you say seebs.