For creationists: How would you know?

[shernren]

I have no idea why this post didn't show up in my CP ... oh well. Better late than never. I'm going to chop up your post a bit (one-liners get really messy after a while) so if you think I've unfairly altered anything you've said just holler emoticons have been pruned too.

Don’t you think that’s because it [geocentrism] wasn’t all that important?
But geocentrism and creation are so very much different and cannot be fairly compared. Wouldn’t you agree?
Then why misinform, why not leave it [the account of creation] vague and ambiguous?
You don’t believe the foundation to a story has much relevance to the core of the story?

I think that geocentrism and creationism are different in one main aspect: most people understand why geocentrism is false, while many people don't understand why ("why scientists think" - if you're a creationist) evolution is true. I don't see a difference between something peripheral and something fundamental to the Bible ... I see a difference between something well-understood by people (that the earth moves around the sun) and something not well understood by people (that life evolved, or seems to have).

I think it's very obvious that Genesis 1-11 is ambiguous to some extent: or else we wouldn't be holding very different views of it, now would we? But I don't think the ambiguity is in terms of whether or not Scripture supports or allows evolution; I think the ambiguity is in terms of whether or not evolution is valid input into the interpretation of Scripture. There is a subtle difference here.

I've always held to these two points:

1. That the Bible was written with reference to, but not in support of, all external facts (and non-facts) "well known" in the day of its having been written;

2. That the Bible should be interpreted with reference to, but not in support of, all external facts (and non-facts) "well known" in the day of our reading it.

That is how books are written and books are read, divinely authorized or not. So to me, it only seems natural that what I know to be true of the physical world (evolution) must influence my interpretation of Scripture. I have tried to not do it that way, you know. For a short while after seeing the evidence against creationism, I had a sort of mental dichotomy in my head: the Bible's account was literally true, but you would not expect to see any scientific proof of it whatsoever. I would post that "to an evolutionist" such-and-such a physical argument was invalid for this and that reason, all the while being convinced in my head that evolution had never really happened. But it was tiring, it didn't make sense, and it disturbed me at a time when I was carefully considering a future career in science.

If you’re stuck on scientific findings to support YEC then I agree, you’ll probably never be convinced.
Oh they are, but that evidence cannot contradict the plain reading of Scripture without some very strong biblically based hermeneutics and exegesis.

I'd just say that a "plain" reading of Scripture that requires me to un-know things I know about physical reality doesn't sound like a plain reading at all.

 

[Mallon]

Don’t you think that’s because it [geocentrism] wasn’t all that important?

For what it's worth, there once was a time when geocentrism WAS theologically important. If, as Genesis suggests (and Job contradicts), humans were the crowning achievement of God's creation, then it would only make sense that God would place them at the centre of the universe. To deny this basic tenet way back when would've resulted in charges of heresy.

 

[vossler]

Sorry for the delay getting back to you vossler

No problem, I thought maybe you had had enough of me. I’m glad to see that isn’t the case.

Sorry vossler, logic is not a matter of subjective opinion. You simply don't know my motivation for looking at what is said about mustard seeds. Even if you were right that I was 'trying to find things wrong with the bible', which I am not, you still have the problem that your exegesis cannot distinguish between a literal six day creation, geocentrism, or mustard seeds being the smallest seed on earth. So regardless of my motivation, your defence of YEC still cannot deal with these problems.

True, I really don’t know your motivation concerning the mustard seed, I can only go with what I perceive through what is presented to me.
You say my exegesis cannot distinguish between a literal six day creation, geocentrism or the mustard seed being the smallest seed. I’ve always thought the exegesis for all to be quite clear and unmistakable.

The six day creation account is the easiest of the three because it is so foundational. When God in Genesis repeatedly uses terminology such as “the first day”, “the second day”, “the third day”, etc. along side terms such as evening and morning I’m hard pressed to exegetically pull out anything else from the text. Then when He reaffirms Genesis in Exodus, well all questions should be eliminated. One would have to do quite a few mental gymnastics to read the text in any other manner than literal.

Geocentrism and the mustard seed just aren’t issues for me. They play no theological role and are therefore unimportant. They never are the focus of the text nor does reading them as one way or the other in anyway change the meaning of the Scriptures in question. If someone wishes to argue these points in order to disprove the literal validity of other texts, it is because the person isn’t able to effectively argue their main point through a proper and applicable biblically based exegetical method. I have no problem believing that the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown by the Israelite and Jesus’ explanation was as clear to them as it is to me. I don’t believe anyone afterward said to themselves; ‘Wait a minute, is the mustard seed really the smallest seed?’

Those who today raise these concerns as an excuse or justification and do not take Genesis literally are placing too much emphasis on something that isn’t important and transferring that insignificant and illogical reasoning to an area that is important and foundational to our walk.

Think about what you are saying. It is not true that mustard seeds are the smallest seed on earth. If not true equals false or wrong to you, then you are saying Jesus said things that are false or wrong. I could not agree with that.

Jesus never said things that were false or wrong. Like I said, to the Jew the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown. It is you that appears to be saying He said something false or not true, not me.

1. Moses didn't take God's day literally as he tells us in his Psalm about the creation, Psalm 90.

Here’s the Psalm, please highlight the areas where you feel Moses doesn’t take the creation account to be literal.

1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place
in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You return man to dust
and say, "Return, O children of man!"
4 For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.
5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,
like grass that is renewed in the morning:
6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed;
in the evening it fades and withers.
7 For we are brought to an end by your anger;
by your wrath we are dismayed.
8 You have set our iniquities before you,
our secret sins in the light of your presence.
9 For all our days pass away under your wrath;
we bring our years to an end like a sigh.
10 The years of our life are seventy,
or even by reason of strength eighty;
yet their span is but toil and trouble;
they are soon gone, and we fly away.
11 Who considers the power of your anger,
and your wrath according to the fear of you?
12 So teach us to number our days
that we may get a heart of wisdom.
13 Return, O LORD! How long?
Have pity on your servants!
14 Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love,
that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.
15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us,
and for as many years as we have seen evil.
16 Let your work be shown to your servants,
and your glorious power to their children.
17 Let the favor[d] of the Lord our God be upon us,
and establish the work of our hands upon us;
yes, establish the work of our hands!

2. Jesus didn't take the reference to ceasing work literally. Compare Gen 2:2&3, Exodus 20:11 & 31:17 with John 5:17

Genesis 2: 2&3

And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

Exodus 20: 9-11

Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31: 16-17

Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

John 5: 16-19

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working.”This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.”

Are you saying you feel that Jesus in John’s gospel didn’t take the Sabbath literally and that somehow allows us to not take Genesis literally? I pray that’s not the case!

Let me see if you might agree with this. As you can see Jesus in verses 18 and 19 equates Himself with God the Father. As such He was saying that as God He can do as He pleases because He is holy and sovereign. Basically that His Father doesn’t rest and neither does He. As you yourself say in number 3 below, the Sabbath was made for man.
Just because Jesus has some latitude, in no way does that allow us the same.

3. Jesus didn't take the explanation for the Sabbath given in Exodus literally. Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. However Exodus says the Sabbath command was instituted to commemorate God resting on the Seventh day and making it holy.

I’m obviously missing your point here, could you please elaborate how God resting on the Sabbath day of creation somehow validates evolution.

4. A literal reading of the Sabbath command tells us that God was worn out after creating the world and was refreshed after having a rest. This cannot be taken literally. In Exodus God also uses the very rare word 'refreshed' to describe weary labourers recovering their strength. God does not get tired, but the description of him resting and being refreshed works very well as an anthropomorphic metaphor where God identifies with the weary and heavy laden. That means though that the six days are part of an metaphorical description of the creation, not a literal one.

As someone who reads creation as a literal event I in no way interpret it to mean that God was somehow worn out afterwards; nor do I know any other creationists who believe that, so your statement isn’t accurate. Given this inaccuracy this then cannot be a basis for justifying billions of years. You’ve taken a lot of liberty here to describe your theory without there being any biblical foundation to it.

5. The same Sabbath command in Deuteronomy is also illustrated using an anthropomorphic metaphor describing God freeing the Israelites from captivity. If God's 'mighty hand and outstretched arm' cannot be taken literally, then there is no basis for saying God's six day creation has to be literal.

How you connect these two, what appear to me, completely different theological points is interesting and quite plain inappropriate. Please show me biblically how you can do that.

6. The writer of Hebrew describes God's seventh day rest as a rest we can still enter today, telling us the Seventh day of creation is still going on, or refers to continuing state and relationship with God we need to be part of.

How do you take Hebrews 4 to say that the Seventh day of creation is still going on?
Here is the Scripture in question, Hebrews 4: 3-7 please elaborate.
For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

"As I swore in my wrath,
'They shall not enter my rest,'"
although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." And again in this passage he said,

"They shall not enter my rest."
Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, "Today," saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, "Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."

 

[vossler]

Part II

Do you think belief in a literal Good Samaritan is foundational to the story? And what is foundational to Genesis? The fact that God created everything, or what you perceive as his timetable?

The Good Samaritan story was a parable, but even if it were not nothing changes, the truths within the story don’t change. The same cannot be said for Genesis, if I evolved over a period of millions of years from a primordial soup of sorts into who I am today, God no longer created me out of the dust into His image. I’m no longer different than the apes I evolved from or through and I’m just another animal. Most evolutionists will claim that to be true. The six days along with the ex nihilo creative process are foundational to the story. It shows how all God needs to do is speak, He requires nothing else.

So are you saying you have decided to continue to believe that mustard seeds are the smallest seed in spite of poppy seeds being smaller That is really strange. Christianity is all about faith.

No, what I’m saying is that at the time, 1st Century Palestine, the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown by the Israelites. Therefore the statement was true to them and they could thereby relate to the story.

But it doesn't mean believing things that simply aren't true. If your interpretation is contradicted by the facts, it is time to reassess the way you interpreted it.

It was true that, at the time, the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown. My ‘interpretation’ has nothing to do with that fact. Just because something isn’t a fact today doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t then. Biblical facts have never been proven false, at least not when it comes to when the statements were made. However, many worldly facts are later proven false, but biblical ones never are. There are countless facts in the Bible that were previously thought to be mythical or in error but later were found to be true. Fortunately for us the Bible is 100% true and factual correct. It certainly isn’t cause to reevaluate Scripture and history bears that out.

Don't confuse the plain facts of science with the research, experiments and maths used to verify them being easy to understand by non scientists. But they are well established. I am sure you feel heliocentrism is plain easy to understand and supported with facts. But do you understand Kepler's laws of planetary motion? Newton's law of universal gravitation and his laws of motion? How about Albert Einstein's general relativity? All these are part of a scientific understanding of the plain facts of our heliocentric solar system. But you are more familiar with antievolution arguments than say, astronomy.

I have no doubt that a lot of research, experiments and math went into the theory of evolution. I also know that a lot of speculation and conjecture did also. The whole primordial soup to man concept is exactly that, speculation and conjecture. Of course I’m more familiar with the anti-evolution argument than any other scientific theory, that’s because that is the only theory that conflicts with Scripture, therefore I had to make myself aware of it.

It is easy to establish the scientific plain scientific fact that mustard is simply not the smallest seed. The science is a bit more complex demonstrating that sun does not travel around the earth and that the world much more than 6,000 years old. But they are still plain facts of science.

Those plain facts are also not in conflict with Scripture.

The difficulty you have is knowing when the word of God is speaking on a subject rather than believing it will be accurate when it does. It is not science's job to persuade people God's word isn't true.

That is oh so true, it isn’t science’s job, yet that’s where the problem unfortunately is, science or rather scientists have perverted science to apply things of itself that are not applicable. Science is supposed to report observable, verifiable, empirical evidence and test it to ensure its content. However, in the case of evolution, it spends far too much time trying to make predictions as opposed to the reporting of the actual evidence. Unfortunately the end result is a mixture of the two that sways far too much into predictions (speculation and conjecture) and not nearly enough onto actual evidence. Of course, science doesn’t boldly come out and say God’s Word isn’t true because it can’t, it’s only the scientists themselves that imply that.

I don’t believe it is too difficult to ascertain when the Word of God is speaking on a subject. Do you have an example where it is and you believe I’m not aware of?

It's job is simply to tell us about the universe. If you believe, as you and I both do, that Jesus as telling his disciples the truth. The only conclusion is that he wasn't telling them about mustard seeds. That passage in the word of God is speaking about faith not horticulture. The passage where Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still is telling us about God's mighty miraculous power, it is not teaching astronomy or the relative motion of the sun moon and earth. Exodus 20:11 is speaking about the Sabbath, not teaching age of the universe.

The only alternative is to live in a fantasy world believing mustard has the smallest seed, the sun goes around the earth and the world is only 6,000 years old. That does not bring honour to God, his word, or the world he created.

I agree completely with this first paragraph. Jesus wasn’t telling them about mustard seeds, but what He said about them wasn’t false. If you believe that then what you’re saying is that His message is true, but He used an invalid or unsound means of conveying it. That I don’t agree with!

As for the Exodus 20:11 passage, well that’s just a bit different I believe. First of all it is referencing creation which was already presented in Genesis, the other two have no similar reference or tie. Secondly, the Sabbath is directly tied to the Creation week as so explicitly described in Genesis so the need for further clarification wasn’t necessary to the Jew.

I think one of the biggest mistakes Christianity keep making is when they turn their back on knowledge, science, and education. God did not feel the same way apparently and some of the most mightily used men of God have been highly educated in the best secular education of the time: Moses, Daniel, Paul.

I’ve never turned my back on knowledge, science and education, I heartily support all three.

Apparently your 2Cor quote works just as well in rejecting the pagan notions of a spherical earth.

What if they’re also non-pagan notions?

Isn't this irrelevant? It is not a question of how many liberal Christians there are or whether they outnumber the conservatives Christians, or whether there are more conservative YECs or TEs. It is not a referendum.

You’re right it isn’t a referendum, but it is interesting.

No simply that liberals as a whole don't like to deny the facts of science. You won't get many liberal geocentrists or micromustardists either.

Actually I believe liberals as a whole put too much trust in their own feelings and understanding. BTW, what happened to all the micromustardists, where have they all gone?

The 'interesting light' is called guilt by association. You wouldn't have like some of the people Jesus hung around with either. Sorry vossler you are really struggling here. You can't answer the scripture so you are resorting to maligning people who believe in evilution.

What Scripture am I unable to answer?

I believe guilt by association is a valid position to hold. Here’s a simple way to prove how we do this rightly all the time. If the statistics showed that a majority of accidents on the streets are caused by teenagers then the insurance industry has every right to charge teenagers more for insurance than older policy holders. Does that mean that all teenagers are poor drivers? No, but because the majority are the rest are guilty too…by association.

We were looking at the way God speaks to us in his word and how literalism can read things into his word that are simply wrong, as well as missing what God is saying to us. Specifically I was looking at two places where there is no metaphor flagged up to warn literalists, there are no scripture passages contradicting it or suggesting an alternative interpretation, and the plain sense of Scripture does make common sense, at least to people without extra scriptural information that poppy seeds are smaller than mustard and that the earth rotates instead of the sun moving around us. If these are rightly reinterpreted in the light of evidence, then why not look at different interpretations of the Genesis days?

The plain sense of the stories makes common sense. The story of the mustard seed is, as you said, about faith and the mustard seed’s size relative to modern science and application isn’t of any importance. The same holds true for the sun or earth moving. Reinterpreting either bears no fruit while reinterpreting Genesis changes a lot. So how does literalism misinterpret those Scriptures or miss what God is saying? They mean the same thing to me as they do to you.

If the bible speaks about the size of a mustard seed and the motion of the sun, then according to your view, scientific evidence and speculation cannot be taken into account. It shouldn't matter whether mustard seeds and geocentrism are the primary point or not, if the bible has spoken clearly, your hermeneutic does not allow you to disagree, no matter what the external evidence from science or even your own eyes.

Ahh…now I see where you’re coming from. I have no problem with you pursuing scientific evidence in order to disprove inconsequential things alluded to in the Bible. I myself have no inclination to do so, but if you’re so inclined to filter those things through a scientific test in order to substantiate Scripture that’s fine with me. My only problem is when you allow the science to supersede the Scripture.

I want to agree with shernren. I am enjoying really our conversations with you.

Yes, they’ve been most enlightening and even productive I think.

 

[vossler]

I think that geocentrism and creationism are different in one main aspect: most people understand why geocentrism is false, while many people don't understand why ("why scientists think" - if you're a creationist) evolution is true. I don't see a difference between something peripheral and something fundamental to the Bible ... I see a difference between something well-understood by people (that the earth moves around the sun) and something not well understood by people (that life evolved, or seems to have).

I see what you're saying, at least from the point of understanding. Still I believe the main difference is one is important and the other isn't, not one is easily understood and one isn't.

I've always held to these two points:

1. That the Bible was written with reference to, but not in support of, all external facts (and non-facts) "well known" in the day of its having been written;

2. That the Bible should be interpreted with reference to, but not in support of, all external facts (and non-facts) "well known" in the day of our reading it.

On the surface these seem very plausible and supportable points. However I reserve the right to reevaluate at a later date.

That is how books are written and books are read, divinely authorized or not. So to me, it only seems natural that what I know to be true of the physical world (evolution) must influence my interpretation of Scripture. I have tried to not do it that way, you know. For a short while after seeing the evidence against creationism, I had a sort of mental dichotomy in my head: the Bible's account was literally true, but you would not expect to see any scientific proof of it whatsoever. I would post that "to an evolutionist" such-and-such a physical argument was invalid for this and that reason, all the while being convinced in my head that evolution had never really happened. But it was tiring, it didn't make sense, and it disturbed me at a time when I was carefully considering a future career in science.

Thanks, I really liked that honest explanation.

Let me ask you, do you believe there is any possibility that the scientific evidence you perceive to be true and reliable is in fact not true?

I'd just say that a "plain" reading of Scripture that requires me to un-know things I know about physical reality doesn't sound like a plain reading at all.

I would agree with that if I felt as strongly as you do.

Shouldn't the opposite also be true though, if you knew something to be scripturally true and science came along and told you otherwise wouldn't that require you to "un-know" something?

For me the question is, in what am I putting my faith?

 

[vossler]

[/color]
For what it's worth, there once was a time when geocentrism WAS theologically important. If, as Genesis suggests (and Job contradicts), humans were the crowning achievement of God's creation, then it would only make sense that God would place them at the centre of the universe. To deny this basic tenet way back when would've resulted in charges of heresy.

I agree, it sure seemed to be important at one time. I have no idea why though.

 

[artybloke]

The Good Samaritan story was a parable, but even if it were not nothing changes, the truths within the story don’t change. The same cannot be said for Genesis, if I evolved over a period of millions of years from a primordial soup of sorts into who I am today, God no longer created me out of the dust into His image.

Why not? Why should one be a pictorial representation of real truth, and not the other? Why can't God create you from the dust into His image through evolution (even from that "primordial soup" - which is surely made up itself of the "dust of the earth?")

I see nothing in evolution that somehow takes away from God's being the creator, except a stubborn clinging to the notion that somehow God doesn't work unless He's working miraculously. Which doesn't seem quite right somehow.

 

[Assyrian]

True, I really don’t know your motivation concerning the mustard seed, I can only go with what I perceive through what is presented to me.
You say my exegesis cannot distinguish between a literal six day creation, geocentrism or the mustard seed being the smallest seed. I’ve always thought the exegesis for all to be quite clear and unmistakable.

How would people interpret what Jesus said about the mustard seed if they didn't know about poppy seeds and orchids? Was your exegesis of the geocentric passage clear to people before Copernicus? It is not how Calvin and Luther interpreted them.

The six day creation account is the easiest of the three because it is so foundational. When God in Genesis repeatedly uses terminology such as “the first day”, “the second day”, “the third day”, etc. along side terms such as evening and morning I’m hard pressed to exegetically pull out anything else from the text. Then when He reaffirms Genesis in Exodus, well all questions should be eliminated. One would have to do quite a few mental gymnastics to read the text in any other manner than literal.

The account of the fall in Gen 3 should be foundational too but one of the main characters is a talking snake, who it turns out was a figurative description of an angel. Foundational clearly does not mean literal. Why should repeated terminology mean something has to be literal? 'This is my body' is repeated four times in the NT. It is still figurative. Repetition in scripture can just as easily be a characteristic of poetry, a chorus in the hymn of creation. If anything "the first day", "the second day", "the third day", etc. show how this was not a literal sequence of consecutive days. That is how literal consecutive days are described in the OT. Genesis on the other hand does not say that. It says "one day", "a second day", "a third day". How can Exodus reaffirm a literal interpretation when the description is in the middle of a metaphor?

Geocentrism and the mustard seed just aren’t issues for me. They play no theological role and are therefore unimportant. They never are the focus of the text nor does reading them as one way or the other in anyway change the meaning of the Scriptures in question. If someone wishes to argue these points in order to disprove the literal validity of other texts, it is because the person isn’t able to effectively argue their main point through a proper and applicable biblically based exegetical method.

But the interpretation of days doesn't make any theological difference either, certainly not for any biblical theology. Genesis still teaches God is creator. Now I have given plenty of biblical reasons not to interpret the days literally and why a figurative interpretation is supported by scripture. Your reason for rejecting this seems to be based on a gut 'the Holy spirit told you' and that that somehow a six day creation is foundational and must therefore, in your view, be literal.

If you claim it is wrong to use our knowledge of science to help interpret scripture where scripture has, as you put it, clearly spoken, why shouldn't I point to areas where you reinterpret apparently clear scripture in the light of science? If it is right to reinterpret mustard seeds and geocentrism, why not creation 'days'? So you say it is because these aren't important theologically, well neither is the length of time God took to create the world. He is still Creator. Do we have to decide how important a statement is theologically before we know if it is to be interpreted literally or not? Then what do we make of 'the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world?

You decide whether something has to be literal or not based on how important it is theologically. But you seem to base the theological importance on a literal interpretation. It seems a circular argument.

I have no problem believing that the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown by the Israelite and Jesus’ explanation was as clear to them as it is to me. I don’t believe anyone afterward said to themselves; ‘Wait a minute, is the mustard seed really the smallest seed?’

No they knew better than to quibble with Jesus over the literal interpretation of his words.

As I have shown you, Jesus didn't say the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown by the Israelite, and anyway it wasn't even that. But even if you were right, you are still reinterpreting the passage in the light of extrabiblical knowledge. If you did not know about poppy seeds you would read the plain meaning of the verse as saying mustard was the smallest seed in the world. In fact that is the way you did read it. But you changed your interpretation of the very words of Jesus because of basic science.

Those who today raise these concerns as an excuse or justification and do not take Genesis literally are placing too much emphasis on something that isn’t important and transferring that insignificant and illogical reasoning to an area that is important and foundational to our walk.

Are Jesus' words are insignificant? 2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. Are you saying it is alright for the bible to be wrong about unimportant things? Surely it is important if the bible is wrong about anything? It either means the bible is unreliable, or our interpretation of the bible is unreliable. And if we cannot trust our interpretation on the small things, how do we know we can trust it in the important?

Jesus never said things that were false or wrong. Like I said, to the Jew the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown. It is you that appears to be saying He said something false or not true, not me.

They grew poppies too. Jesus was teaching his disciples about faith and mustard was the illustration he used. Mustard seed was used proverbially as a comparison for something very small. Jesus didn't care that his hyperbole describing of the mustard seed as the smallest of all the seeds on earth was in it's plain reading literally wrong. What he cared about was teaching the disciples about faith.

OK my daughter is kicking me off he computer to get on MSN. More tomorrow.

 

[busterdog]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
How would people interpret what Jesus said about the mustard seed if they didn't know about poppy seeds and orchids? Was your exegesis of the geocentric passage clear to people before Copernicus? It is not how Calvin and Luther interpreted them.


The account of the fall in Gen 3 should be foundational too but one of the main characters is a talking snake, who it turns out was a figurative description of an angel. Foundational clearly does not mean literal. Why should repeated terminology mean something has to be literal? 'This is my body' is repeated four times in the NT. It is still figurative. Repetition in scripture can just as easily be a characteristic of poetry, a chorus in the hymn of creation. If anything "the first day", "the second day", "the third day", etc. show how this was not a literal sequence of consecutive days. That is how literal consecutive days are described in the OT. Genesis on the other hand does not say that. It says "one day", "a second day", "a third day". How can Exodus reaffirm a literal interpretation when the description is in the middle of a metaphor?


But the interpretation of days doesn't make any theological difference either, certainly not for any biblical theology. Genesis still teaches God is creator. Now I have given plenty of biblical reasons not to interpret the days literally and why a figurative interpretation is supported by scripture. Your reason for rejecting this seems to be based on a gut 'the Holy spirit told you' and that that somehow a six day creation is foundational and must therefore, in your view, be literal.

If you claim it is wrong to use our knowledge of science to help interpret scripture where scripture has, as you put it, clearly spoken, why shouldn't I point to areas where you reinterpret apparently clear scripture in the light of science? If it is right to reinterpret mustard seeds and geocentrism, why not creation 'days'? So you say it is because these aren't important theologically, well neither is the length of time God took to create the world. He is still Creator. Do we have to decide how important a statement is theologically before we know if it is to be interpreted literally or not? Then what do we make of 'the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world?

You decide whether something has to be literal or not based on how important it is theologically. But you seem to base the theological importance on a literal interpretation. It seems a circular argument.


No they knew better than to quibble with Jesus over the literal interpretation of his words.

As I have shown you, Jesus didn't say the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown by the Israelite, and anyway it wasn't even that. But even if you were right, you are still reinterpreting the passage in the light of extrabiblical knowledge. If you did not know about poppy seeds you would read the plain meaning of the verse as saying mustard was the smallest seed in the world. In fact that is the way you did read it. But you changed your interpretation of the very words of Jesus because of basic science.


Are Jesus' words are insignificant? 2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. Are you saying it is alright for the bible to be wrong about unimportant things? Surely it is important if the bible is wrong about anything? It either means the bible is unreliable, or our interpretation of the bible is unreliable. And if we cannot trust our interpretation on the small things, how do we know we can trust it in the important?


They grew poppies too. Jesus was teaching his disciples about faith and mustard was the illustration he used. Mustard seed was used proverbially as a comparison for something very small. Jesus didn't care that his hyperbole describing of the mustard seed as the smallest of all the seeds on earth was in it's plain reading literally wrong. What he cared about was teaching the disciples about faith.

I thought your discussion of the language of the parable made a lot of sense.

Looking at the Greek and the nature of the "mustard" or cruciferous vegetable seed, there might be some literal truth to what is said, but that is really beside the point. There are some cruciferous seeds that are smaller than anything else I plant in my my garden. Not sure what plant he is referring to.

Obviously the Bible has passages that are only metaphor. That doesn't make the case for Gen. 1 being metaphor. You might just as well say that the Book of Chronicles as an example of history proves that there is no metaphor anywhere in the Bible.

But, I am not sure where your argument goes in trying to take on Genesis, other than to suggest that interpretation can be really tough stuff.

If we are looking at a mostly metaphorical Genesis, there are some significant problems:

1. What about the snake losing his appendages?

2. Woman coming from a man's rib?

3. Pain in childbirth as a consequence of the fall?

4. What is the point of a tree of life in an evolutionary world? The Theophany was already in the Garden, walking in the Garden. Was a completely seperate metaphor necessary? That would be mixing metaphors. Where does that leave the tree that can give eternal physical life?

5. WOuldn't evolution teach that there never was any kind of a garden? According to evolutionary theory, there has never been paradise. So, how could it be lost?

What is the metaphorical point of any of these? From the point of view of literary criticism, they actually work better as history. As metaphors, they are kind of lame, if not competely confusing.

You will recall that I conceded the point about the entrance of death as a bit of conundrum for YEC. So, I don't have all the answers. But, I think there are some pretty big flies in the metaphorical ointment.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallon
[/color]
For what it's worth, there once was a time when geocentrism WAS theologically important. If, as Genesis suggests (and Job contradicts), humans were the crowning achievement of God's creation, then it would only make sense that God would place them at the centre of the universe. To deny this basic tenet way back when would've resulted in charges of heresy.

I agree, it sure seemed to be important at one time. I have no idea why though.

I just don't see the geocentric argument out of the text. Not sure why so much is made of it. The sun doesn't really "rise" either, but no one gets their knickers in a not about it.

Most of these arguments, with time disappear. There are many of them that have been debunked than have stood the test of time. The many archaelogical "proofs" against Biblical history have largely been humiliated. MOst of the study of the BIble has in fact gone in teh other direction, toward validation.

There is that old canard about the measurements of the bronze sea for ritual washing. Oddly enough, that one not only begs the obvious question to come to the true result, but provides an answer specifically invoking the agency of the Holy Spirit.

TO me, that says be very careful about what you conclude to be errors in the Bible.

 

[Mallon]

I just don't see the geocentric argument out of the text. Not sure why so much is made of it. The sun doesn't really "rise" either, but no one gets their knickers in a not about it.

Oh, it's there. Between the Bible speaking of the "immovable" Earth on its foundation and the rising and setting sun that "hurries back to where it rises" (Ecc. 1:5), I don't see how you can't see it. Certainly, there's nothing that suggests heliocentrism. Or a round Earth, for that matter.

 

[shernren]

I thought your discussion of the language of the parable made a lot of sense.

Looking at the Greek and the nature of the "mustard" or cruciferous vegetable seed, there might be some literal truth to what is said, but that is really beside the point. There are some cruciferous seeds that are smaller than anything else I plant in my my garden. Not sure what plant he is referring to.

Obviously the Bible has passages that are only metaphor. That doesn't make the case for Gen. 1 being metaphor. You might just as well say that the Book of Chronicles as an example of history proves that there is no metaphor anywhere in the Bible.

But, I am not sure where your argument goes in trying to take on Genesis, other than to suggest that interpretation can be really tough stuff.

It goes to show that in determining whether a passage is historical, metaphorical, or something weirder altogether, external evidence is not just necessary but often crucial. Is there any indication from the passage that the mustard seed isn't really the smallest seed you plant in the ground? No, if I take the passage at face value, I don't see any indication that the mustard seed isn't really the smallest seed. If I'd been a farmer there and you'd told me that there were smaller seeds like the poppy and orchid seeds I'd ask you what you'd been smoking, how dare you insult the Master's reputation by suggesting He's wrong?

And yet, the external evidence is never altered by the passage. There are smaller seeds planted in the ground. We cannot alter the external evidence to fit what we want to say, we can only alter our interpretations to match the external evidence.

That is all TEs are doing with Genesis, nothing less and nothing more. Why does it offend people? After all, it's the precise same thing they do with the rest of the Bible.

If we are looking at a mostly metaphorical Genesis, there are some significant problems:

1. What about the snake losing his appendages?

2. Woman coming from a man's rib?

3. Pain in childbirth as a consequence of the fall?

I don't see what the problems are. Besides, if you look carefully, the woman's pains would be greatly multiplied / increased by the Fall. This doesn't seem to me to suggest that childbirth would have been completely painless before the Fall. There is also the emotional pain of knowing that the child you bear would be a sinful child, born into a sinful world.

4. What is the point of a tree of life in an evolutionary world? The Theophany was already in the Garden, walking in the Garden. Was a completely seperate metaphor necessary? That would be mixing metaphors. Where does that leave the tree that can give eternal physical life?

Is the tree of life central to Christian theology? I doubt so.

5. WOuldn't evolution teach that there never was any kind of a garden? According to evolutionary theory, there has never been paradise. So, how could it be lost?

That's actually a legitimate complaint: and yet to me, the historicity of Adam and Eve is quite separate from the factual content of their story in Genesis. Their story in Genesis is a non-historical story of a historical event. I've posted this up before:

... somewhere along the line, some people had to have shown up at a real time and place as the first of a race of priestly beings.

I feel I am about to lose my audience. I shall give you one disclaimer. I am not at all concerned here with whether those people were a lonely he and she, or a crowd, or whether they were made in one shot or gradually pasted up over millions of years. The only point I want to make is that if you seriously intend to see history as a real web, then the web itself must have a beginning, and that beginning must be discussed historically. ...

... if history is real, some particular people will have to turn out to have been Adam and Eve. In the day of judgment we may find out that they called each other Oscar and Enid and that they lived on a Norwegian fjord; but those will be only details. They themselves will have existed. And the essential historical fact about them will be not simply that our biological inheritance came from them but that all the threads of the web began with them. It is precisely the rest of history that you lose if you unload Adam and Eve.

Robert Farrar Capon, An Offering of Uncles

 

[Assyrian]

Here’s the Psalm, please highlight the areas where you feel Moses doesn’t take the creation account to be literal.

1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place
in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You return man to dust

A reference to man being created of dust, very Gen 2&3

and say, "Return, O children of man!"

4 For a thousand years in your sight
are but as as a day yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.

In the context of a creation psalm we are told a thousand years are as a day in God's sight, or a few hours. So Moses is telling the Israelites and us, in the context of creation, that when God describes something as a day, he may well be describing things from his perspective rather than ours.

5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,
like grass that is renewed in the morning:
6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed;
in the evening it fades and withers.

Note all the images from the first chapters of Genesis that Moses is bringing out here and using as an allegory for our own lives, dust, day, flood, morning and evening. In spite of the YEC claim that morning and evening mean a day has to be literal, Moses uses morning and evening to describe our whole life as a single day. Clearly Moses didn't think see a problem with any of these terms being used figuratively, but more importantly it puts Moses' description of God's days right in the middle of a study of Genesis.

Now I am not saying that Moses interpreted Genesis allegorical in Psalm 90, therefore Genesis isn't literal. This is just looking at the YEC proof that the days had to be literal because it uses words like morning and evening.

More importantly for us, it places Moses' discussion of God's days right in the middle of a Psalm about Genesis and the creation.

Genesis 2: 2&3

And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

Exodus 20: 9-11

Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31: 16-17

Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

John 5: 16-19

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working.”This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.”

Are you saying you feel that Jesus in John’s gospel didn’t take the Sabbath literally and that somehow allows us to not take Genesis literally? I pray that’s not the case!

Clearly Jesus didn't take the description of God ceasing his work literally. It doesn't just 'allow' us to interpret Genesis figuratively, it teaches us us to.

Let me see if you might agree with this. As you can see Jesus in verses 18 and 19 equates Himself with God the Father. As such He was saying that as God He can do as He pleases because He is holy and sovereign. Basically that His Father doesn’t rest and neither does He. As you yourself say in number 3 below, the Sabbath was made for man.
Just because Jesus has some latitude, in no way does that allow us the same.
I’m obviously missing your point here, could you please elaborate how God resting on the Sabbath day of creation somehow validates evolution.

It is not that Jesus is God and doesn't have to obey the sabbath command. It is that Jesus said had not stopped working. My Father is working until now, and I am working. If God was 'working until now' it means he didn't stop working on the seventh day of creation as a literal reading of Genesis and Exodus tell us.

The only 'day' of the creation week mentioned anywhere outside Genesis and Exodus is the Seventh day and every time the Seventh day comes up it is interpreted non literally. If the creation days are not literal, what is the problem with evolution?

As someone who reads creation as a literal event I in no way interpret it to mean that God was somehow worn out afterwards; nor do I know any other creationists who believe that, so your statement isn’t accurate. Given this inaccuracy this then cannot be a basis for justifying billions of years. You’ve taken a lot of liberty here to describe your theory without there being any biblical foundation to it.

Of course you don't interpret it that way. You know God doesn't get tired. But that is what a literal reading of the passages in Exodus says. In fact what creationists do is insist the six days have to be literal while brushing aside the plain literal meaning of God resting and being refreshed.

How you connect these two, what appear to me, completely different theological points is interesting and quite plain inappropriate. Please show me biblically how you can do that.

The ten commandments are listed twice in scripture, once in Exodus and once Deuteronomy. Exodus and Deut use two different illustrations to illuminate the Sabbath command. The illustration used in Deut is clearly anthropomorphic describing God's 'mighty hand and outstretched arm'. Yet creationists reject any possibility of an anthropomorphic metaphor being used in the same place in Exodus.

How do you take Hebrews 4 to say that the Seventh day of creation is still going on?

Here is the Scripture in question, Hebrews 4: 3-7 please elaborate.
For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

"As I swore in my wrath,
'They shall not enter my rest,'"
although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." And again in this passage he said,

"They shall not enter my rest."

What rest have people not entered? God's rest. What rest is that? His seventh day rest when he rested from all his work. So how is it possible to enter a rest that only lasted 24 hours and finished thousands of years before?

Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, "Today," saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, "Today, if you hear his voice,

do not harden your hearts."

There is only one rest being describe here. The writer talks about entering eis auten 'into this'. The rest we are called to enter is God's seventh day rest. God's seventh day is still going on.

 

[Assyrian]

Part II
The Good Samaritan story was a parable, but even if it were not nothing changes, the truths within the story don’t change. The same cannot be said for Genesis, if I evolved over a period of millions of years from a primordial soup of sorts into who I am today, God no longer created me out of the dust into His image. I’m no longer different than the apes I evolved from or through and I’m just another animal. Most evolutionists will claim that to be true. The six days along with the ex nihilo creative process are foundational to the story. It shows how all God needs to do is speak, He requires nothing else.

I used the Good Samaritan because we aren't told it was a parable But why does it make a difference to you how God made you? Surely the important thing is that he did make you in his image, regardless of the process he used?

No, what I’m saying is that at the time, 1st Century Palestine, the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown by the Israelites. Therefore the statement was true to them and they could thereby relate to the story.

Except that it wasn't. They grew poppies as well. And Jesus didn't limit his statement to Palestine or Palestinian agriculture, he called it the smallest seed on earth.

It was true that, at the time, the mustard seed was the smallest seed sown. My ‘interpretation’ has nothing to do with that fact. Just because something isn’t a fact today doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t then. Biblical facts have never been proven false, at least not when it comes to when the statements were made. However, many worldly facts are later proven false, but biblical ones never are. There are countless facts in the Bible that were previously thought to be mythical or in error but later were found to be true. Fortunately for us the Bible is 100% true and factual correct. It certainly isn’t cause to reevaluate Scripture and history bears that out.

Like I said.

I have no doubt that a lot of research, experiments and math went into the theory of evolution. I also know that a lot of speculation and conjecture did also. The whole primordial soup to man concept is exactly that, speculation and conjecture. Of course I’m more familiar with the anti-evolution argument than any other scientific theory, that’s because that is the only theory that conflicts with Scripture, therefore I had to make myself aware of it.

Meet my friend Copernicus

Those plain facts are also not in conflict with Scripture.

They are in conflict with a literal interpretation, plain reading of scripture. I am sure you have read the quotes from Luther and Calvin.

That is oh so true, it isn’t science’s job, yet that’s where the problem unfortunately is, science or rather scientists have perverted science to apply things of itself that are not applicable. Science is supposed to report observable, verifiable, empirical evidence and test it to ensure its content. However, in the case of evolution, it spends far too much time trying to make predictions as opposed to the reporting of the actual evidence. Unfortunately the end result is a mixture of the two that sways far too much into predictions (speculation and conjecture) and not nearly enough onto actual evidence. Of course, science doesn’t boldly come out and say God’s Word isn’t true because it can’t, it’s only the scientists themselves that imply that.

You do realise one of the most important tests for a scientific theory is the ability to make predictions? A good biblical principle too. Evolution predicted that fossils would be found with characteristics between man and other apes, between whales and land mammals, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds and between fish and amphibians. They found them all, and in the right strata. YEC on the other hand predicted that no transitional fossils would be found.

I don’t believe it is too difficult to ascertain when the Word of God is speaking on a subject. Do you have an example where it is and you believe I’m not aware of?

You have come up with no basis for deciding what the bible is speaking about mustard seeds, the movement of the sun and earth, or the age of creation.

How can you tell bible is describing how long God took to create the world here:
Exodus 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

But is not talking about the motion of the sun and earth here:
Jos 10:12 At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon." 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped... for about a whole day.

here:
Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.

and here:
Eccles 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

And you reinterpret what Jesus says about mustard seed to fit the scientific facts, but don't even realise you are doing it.

I agree completely with this first paragraph. Jesus wasn’t telling them about mustard seeds, but what He said about them wasn’t false. If you believe that then what you’re saying is that His message is true, but He used an invalid or unsound means of conveying it. That I don’t agree with!

I realise it is a very hard concept to get your mind around but it is true. At least the means are invalid if you think they have to be taken literally. That is the real problem.

As for the Exodus 20:11 passage, well that’s just a bit different I believe. First of all it is referencing creation which was already presented in Genesis, the other two have no similar reference or tie.

There are multiple passages where the earth and heavens are described geocentrically. The verses I have quoted above are simply ones used by Calvin, Luther and Melanchton. The mustard seed is repeated in Matthew 13:32 the smallest of all seeds, and Mark 4:31 the smallest of all the seeds on earth.

Secondly, the Sabbath is directly tied to the Creation week as so explicitly described in Genesis so the need for further clarification wasn’t necessary to the Jew.

God's deliverance in the Exodus was even more familiar to the Israelites.

Exodus 3:19 But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. 20 So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go.

Exodus 6:6 Say therefore to the people of Israel, 'I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment.

Exodus 7:5 The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them."

Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

In Deuteronomy the Sabbath command is directly tied to the exodus when God delivered the Israelites with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Doesn't make it literal though.

I’ve never turned my back on knowledge, science and education, I heartily support all three.

As long as you don't learn anything discovered by an atheist or agnostic? It kind of limits you education if you can't learn anything associated with them. Even that doesn't help. It was Christian geologists who discovered the earth was much older than Ussher calculated.

What if they’re also non-pagan notions?

What is the age of the earth is non pagan too?

You’re right it isn’t a referendum, but it is interesting.

So, what is our conclusion? TE makes sense to liberals while YEC isn't, so TE must be wrong? How about the possibility that there are some mistakes that only fundamentalists are likely to be sucked into, bad ideas that only make sense to literalists. How many liberal Christians go in for the prosperity gospel, snake handling, believe global warming is a hoax or that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In the 'great disappointment' in 1843 when Jesus didn't come back as predicted, how many of the Christians disappointed and devastated were literalists? Oh liberals have their own problems, I am not denying that. My point is that YEC is a mistake only literalist fundamentalists would make.

Actually I believe liberals as a whole put too much trust in their own feelings and understanding. BTW, what happened to all the micromustardists, where have they all gone?

Just wait. It only takes one little micromustardists with faith.

What Scripture am I unable to answer?

Micromustard and geocentrist ones.

I believe guilt by association is a valid position to hold. Here’s a simple way to prove how we do this rightly all the time. If the statistics showed that a majority of accidents on the streets are caused by teenagers then the insurance industry has every right to charge teenagers more for insurance than older policy holders. Does that mean that all teenagers are poor drivers? No, but because the majority are the rest are guilty too…by association.

Guilt?

The plain sense of the stories makes common sense. The story of the mustard seed is, as you said, about faith and the mustard seed’s size relative to modern science and application isn’t of any importance. The same holds true for the sun or earth moving. Reinterpreting either bears no fruit while reinterpreting Genesis changes a lot. So how does literalism misinterpret those Scriptures or miss what God is saying? They mean the same thing to me as they do to you.

Aren't what you call inconsequential things scripture too? You say they are just 'alluded too', yet they are as clear, or more clearly, stated than the verses you use to read a six day creation. You have no inclination to look at passages that show how your hermeneutics don't work in areas where you know and cannot deny the science.

Ahh…now I see where you’re coming from. I have no problem with you pursuing scientific evidence in order to disprove inconsequential things alluded to in the Bible. I myself have no inclination to do so, but if you’re so inclined to filter those things through a scientific test in order to substantiate Scripture that’s fine with me. My only problem is when you allow the science to supersede the Scripture.

Aren't what you call inconsequential things scripture too? You say they are just 'alluded too', yet they are as clear, or more clearly, stated than the verses you use to read a six day creation. You have no inclination to look at passages that show how your hermeneutics don't work in areas where you know and cannot deny the science.

Yes, they’ve been most enlightening and even productive I think.

 

[theFijian]

Is the tree of life central to Christian theology? I doubt so.

The way I read it, the tree of Life is Christ. So I would say it's particularly central!

 

[shernren]

The way I read it, the tree of Life is Christ. So I would say it's particularly central!

You're absolutely right. Warg, I feel stupid now.

 

[Assyrian]

I thought your discussion of the language of the parable made a lot of sense.

Thanks

Looking at the Greek and the nature of the "mustard" or cruciferous vegetable seed, there might be some literal truth to what is said, but that is really beside the point. There are some cruciferous seeds that are smaller than anything else I plant in my my garden. Not sure what plant he is referring to.

Obviously the Bible has passages that are only metaphor. That doesn't make the case for Gen. 1 being metaphor. You might just as well say that the Book of Chronicles as an example of history proves that there is no metaphor anywhere in the Bible.

It is more a case of dealing with the YEC claim that the plain reading of Gen 1 is a literal six day creation therefore it must be literal, and that it is wrong to allow extrabiblical source to influence to influence our interpretation. My approach is to show other scriptures where the plain reading is wrong and has been shown to be wrong, and where YECs do allow science to change their interpretation of the 'plain meaning'.

But, I am not sure where your argument goes in trying to take on Genesis, other than to suggest that interpretation can be really tough stuff.

It is that too. It strikes at the infallibility YECs see in their interpretation of Genesis. If Genesis is instead quite difficult to interpret, then there should be no reason to cling to an interpretation science has shown to be as wrong as geocentrism.

If we are looking at a mostly metaphorical Genesis, there are some significant problems:

1. What about the snake losing his appendages?

Was it a snake who tempted mankind, or was it actually Satan as we are told elsewhere in scripture? But he doesn't slither and eat dust. The whole thing is a allegory for what happened to an angel who rebelled and was cast to the earth.

2. Woman coming from a man's rib?

Here the allegory is actually explained to us in Genesis itself. Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 'One flesh' is an image or God's plan for marriage. Interestingly, only time Jesus quoted the Genesis creation account it was this allegorical illustration of marriage he brings up.

3. Pain in childbirth as a consequence of the fall?

I don't know about this one. Would child birth have been easier if the human race was still walking with God? If so, what would be the actual reason? I know YECs say it was because our bodies were immortal and invulnerable back then and pain is the result of he fall, but that is not supported by scripture. In fact what the passage says is that God would 'increase her suffering'. This does not fit the idea of no pain before the fall.

What we do know is that the reason for pain is the combination of a baby's large head and the size of the mother's hips. They cannot be too wide or women would not have been able to run from cave bears and wolves. Cranial capacity which leads to painful childbirth, does however have a strange resonance with eating from the tree of knowledge.

4. What is the point of a tree of life in an evolutionary world? The Theophany was already in the Garden, walking in the Garden. Was a completely seperate metaphor necessary? That would be mixing metaphors. Where does that leave the tree that can give eternal physical life?

If the human race was created mortal, we need more than just to walk with God while we are alive. We need to promise of eternal life transforming our mortal bodies, whether this would be after our death or a twinkling of the eye transformation while we still lived.

5. WOuldn't evolution teach that there never was any kind of a garden? According to evolutionary theory, there has never been paradise. So, how could it be lost?

What we often miss because of translation is that the NT actually has a lot to teach us about the garden of paradise. In the LXX the word for garden in Genesis was paradisos and was the word used by Jews writing in Greek to describe the garden of Eden. According to Revelation then the tree of life is still in the paradise of God aka the garden of Eden Rev 2:7. The thief on the cross was in paradise with Christ when he died. Do you think that was a literal garden somewhere?

What is the metaphorical point of any of these? From the point of view of literary criticism, they actually work better as history. As metaphors, they are kind of lame, if not completely confusing.

You will recall that I conceded the point about the entrance of death as a bit of conundrum for YEC. So, I don't have all the answers. But, I think there are some pretty big flies in the metaphorical ointment.

I am not sure what you expect from biblical allegories. On the one hand they can be utterly simple, even 'lame' as you put it, in some when we look we find layers upon layers of deep and even bewildering meaning. Look at the Prodigal Son, the book of Revelation, the parable of the trees in Judges 9 complete with talking shrubbery, the visions of Daniel and Ezekiel.

 

[vossler]

A reference to man being created of dust, very Gen 2&3

Why isn’t that literal? I see it exactly as that; man goes back to where he came…dust. How do you see it?

In the context of a creation psalm we are told a thousand years are as a day in God's sight, or a few hours. So Moses is telling the Israelites and us, in the context of creation, that when God describes something as a day, he may well be describing things from his perspective rather than ours.

Maybe I’m too simplistically minded, but I just see this as God saying He isn’t constrained by time. That’s why the psalmist states that a thousand years is but a day to the Lord; in other words time doesn’t constrain God.
If one used your logic here then maybe Jonah wasn’t in the belly of the fish for three days but 3 million, or Jesus’ stay in the tomb were three periods of time, that could be why most of the world believes Jesus was in the tomb for only a day and a half. The three days were really 12 hour periods.

Note all the images from the first chapters of Genesis that Moses is bringing out here and using as an allegory for our own lives, dust, day, flood, morning and evening. In spite of the YEC claim that morning and evening mean a day has to be literal, Moses uses morning and evening to describe our whole life as a single day. Clearly Moses didn't think see a problem with any of these terms being used figuratively, but more importantly it puts Moses' description of God's days right in the middle of a study of Genesis.

Now I am not saying that Moses interpreted Genesis allegorical in Psalm 90, therefore Genesis isn't literal. This is just looking at the YEC proof that the days had to be literal because it uses words like morning and evening.
More importantly for us, it places Moses' discussion of God's days right in the middle of a Psalm about Genesis and the creation.

Nor do I have a problem with Moses using these terms allegorically. That’s how I’ve always read them. The plain sense here is common sense, at least for me. But to jump from saying because they are being used in such a manner here could very well mean they were being so used in Genesis is quite a leap, especially since Genesis is being presented historically and this psalm isn’t. I understand that wasn’t your point, yet it certainly opens the door to that type of interpretation.

Clearly Jesus didn't take the description of God ceasing his work literally. It doesn't just 'allow' us to interpret Genesis figuratively, it teaches us us to.

I believe God rested, not that He needed rest but to demonstrate to us the importance of rest to Him and in turn for us. So yes there is a figurative element to this, but not exclusively so.

It is not that Jesus is God and doesn't have to obey the sabbath command. It is that Jesus said had not stopped working.

My Father is working until now, and I am working. If God was 'working until now' it means he didn't stop working on the seventh day of creation as a literal reading of Genesis and Exodus tell us.

I believe, to set the example, He did stop working that day. The thing is all of this is really moot, God is outside of time and isn’t constrained by it, He does as He pleases. The entire discussion is for our benefit and for us to follow.

The only 'day' of the creation week mentioned anywhere outside Genesis and Exodus is the Seventh day and every time the Seventh day comes up it is interpreted non literally. If the creation days are not literal, what is the problem with evolution?

I found this quite interesting and hadn’t heard this before. I immediately did a search of ‘seventh day’ and found quite a few in Leviticus, all of which appeared to be quite literal. Clearly I’m not understanding your point here, could you please elaborate. BTW, even if you can make this point, it’s still a far leap to evolutionary thinking.

Of course you don't interpret it that way. You know God doesn't get tired. But that is what a literal reading of the passages in Exodus says. In fact what creationists do is insist the six days have to be literal while brushing aside the plain literal meaning of God resting and being refreshed.

One only reads that literally if one doesn’t know God and who He is. The plain literal meaning doesn’t apply because of the context; the context shows us that God was using this description to teach us an important lesson. Nothing needed to be brushed aside because all of it was important. This has never been, for me, a difficult passage to understand; it makes perfect sense.

The ten commandments are listed twice in scripture, once in Exodus and once Deuteronomy. Exodus and Deut use two different illustrations to illuminate the Sabbath command. The illustration used in Deut is clearly anthropomorphic describing God's 'mighty hand and outstretched arm'. Yet creationists reject any possibility of an anthropomorphic metaphor being used in the same place in Exodus.

I really don’t understand how you can make that statement. There is nothing in the Exodus passage that could lead one to believe it is ‘anthropomorphic,’ if you believe it is please point it out.

What rest have people not entered? God's rest. What rest is that? His seventh day rest when he rested from all his work. So how is it possible to enter a rest that only lasted 24 hours and finished thousands of years before?

Interesting…so how do you interpret this?
Couldn’t this be a spiritual rest the writer was referring to?

There is only one rest being describe here. The writer talks about entering eis auten 'into this'. The rest we are called to enter is God's seventh day rest. God's seventh day is still going on.

Is this somehow where evolutionary theory can be biblically justified?

I used the Good Samaritan because we aren't told it was a parable But why does it make a difference to you how God made you? Surely the important thing is that he did make you in his image, regardless of the process he used?

It doesn’t make a difference to me personally how God made me except for the fact that He told me how he did it. I don’t have the liberty to change His story to suit me and my beliefs.

Except that it wasn't. They grew poppies as well. And Jesus didn't limit his statement to

Palestine or Palestinian agriculture; he called it the smallest seed on earth.

My research into this topic has shown otherwise. I don't think if he used poppies in this parable that the Israelites would have understood Him. The thing is this isn’t even something I’m concerned with; I have no desire to even attempt to prove God wrong. If this weren’t true then the Israelite at the time would have known it to be false and rightly discounted what was said. I mean if God Himself can’t get this detail right, whatever else He’s claiming is suspect too.

They are in conflict with a literal interpretation, plain reading of scripture. I am sure you have read the quotes from Luther and Calvin.

There are a lot of things that are in conflict with a 100% literal, plain reading of Scripture. I’ve never made the claim that there weren’t, the key here is context, context, context.

You do realise one of the most important tests for a scientific theory is the ability to make predictions? A good biblical principle too. Evolution predicted that fossils would be found with characteristics between man and other apes, between whales and land mammals, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds and between fish and amphibians. They found them all, and in the right strata. YEC on the other hand predicted that no transitional fossils would be found.

I don’t believe you need evolution to predict that characteristics between man and apes exist. All it takes is our eyes. You can do the same between all mammals, what you’ll see is a common designer; it certainly doesn’t open the door to evolutionary theory.
What you state isn’t an exclusive evolutionary theory. Many creationists have actually found or produced the science that came from the information in the fossils. I have yet to see any, and I’ve seen many, transitional fossils that would support evolution. Aron-Ra did as good a job presenting the evidence as I’ve seen anyone do and I wasn’t the least bit convinced.

You have come up with no basis for deciding what the bible is speaking about mustard seeds, the movement of the sun and earth, or the age of creation.

Wow, that’s quite a statement. I thought the mustard seed parable was about faith, are you telling me it isn’t? The movement of the sun and earth? What’s to decide about them? Now the age of creation, now there you might actually have something. I truly don’t know how old creation is, the Bible doesn’t actually come out and tell us. We can, as Ussher did, attempt to figure it out according to the genealogies. Personally, I really don’t even care, it really isn’t all too important. What I do care about is someone claiming that I evolved from some primordial soup through the ape into who I am today. That is clearly against the Bible and something I do care about.

 

[vossler]

Part II

How can you tell bible is describing how long God took to create the world here:
Exodus

20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I don’t know maybe the part where it says “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them” I’m guessing that my hermeneutics are off and it really says millions of years but I just can’t see it because of my fundamentalist viewpoint.

But is not talking about the motion of the sun and earth here:
Jos 10:12 At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon." 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped... for about a whole day.

I never said it wasn’t talking about the motion of the sun and earth.

here:
Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.

Again, this isn’t a problem for me. It is a figurative description. What is it for you?

and here:
Eccles 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

No problem, same as above. For you it’s what?

And you reinterpret what Jesus says about mustard seed to fit the scientific facts, but don't even realise you are doing it.

I’m not reinterpreting anything. I’ve always seen this parable as what it was intended to be, about faith. I’ve never read into it anything else; I didn’t even know people out there were looking for ways to disprove what it said. Call me naïve maybe, but its has never occurred to me to do so. The only reason any sort of ‘reinterpretation’ occurs is because of people like you who are always trying to finding fault with Scripture and to use that as a basis for other faults so that evolution can fit in.

I realise it is a very hard concept to get your mind around but it is true. At least the means are invalid if you think they have to be taken literally. That is the real problem.

Well I don’t think they have to be taken literally because the content doesn’t demand it. So for me it’s never been a problem, but obviously it must be for you.

There are multiple passages where the earth and heavens are described geocentrically. The verses I have quoted above are simply ones used by Calvin, Luther and Melanchton. The mustard seed is repeated in Matthew

13:32the smallest of all seeds, and Mark 4:31the smallest of all the seeds on earth.

True, there are multiple passages where the earth and heavens are described geocentrically. However, that doesn’t cause me any where near the problem that it seems to cause you. I can see past that and even acknowledge that it could mean something else. Either way it isn’t important and therefore I don’t concern myself with it. Forgive me, but your repeated questions on these things are typically asked by atheists or agnostics, they’re always looking for loopholes in Scripture. Are you looking for the same?

God's deliverance in the Exodus was even more familiar to the Israelites.

Exodus

3:19But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. 20 So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go.

Exodus 6:6 Say therefore to the people of Israel, 'I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment.

Exodus 7:5 The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them."

Deut 5:15You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

In Deuteronomy the Sabbath command is directly tied to the exodus when God delivered the Israelites with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Doesn't make it literal though.

No one is claiming it to be. I have no interpretational problems with these texts.

As long as you don't learn anything discovered by an atheist or agnostic? It kind of limits you education if you can't learn anything associated with them. Even that doesn't help. It was Christian geologists who discovered the earth was much older than Ussher calculated.

Some of the best teachers are atheists and agnostics, so I have nothing against them as long as they don’t attempt to teach me something that contradicts Scripture. That is the litmus test for me; what about you?

What is the age of the earth is non pagan too?

Hey I was just asking the question.

So, what is our conclusion? TE makes sense to liberals while YEC isn't, so TE must be wrong? How about the possibility that there are some mistakes that only fundamentalists are likely to be sucked into, bad ideas that only make sense to literalists. How many liberal Christians go in for the prosperity gospel, snake handling, believe global warming is a hoax or that there were weapons of mass destruction in

Iraq. In the 'great disappointment' in 1843 when Jesus didn't come back as predicted, how many of the Christians disappointed and devastated were literalists? Oh liberals have their own problems, I am not denying that. My point is that YEC is a mistake only literalist fundamentalists would make.

Without a doubt fundamentalists can and do get sucked into some pretty ugly mistakes. I believe that’s a result of a closed mind that isn’t willing to open itself to the context of Scripture. This can only be accomplished through the hard work of study and prayer, neither of which many Christians follow.
Personally I don’t see the prosperity gospel being the exclusive home to fundamentalists; I know plenty of liberals who follow that teaching. You might be right about the snake handling, although the number that do so are so few that it really is insignificant. I believe global warming, as it is being portrayed today, is a hoax, the world has gone through many cycles of warm and cold and this one is just another peak in that cycle. If you don’t believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, well that’s your right, but I have no doubt.

As far as your last sentence, I agree 100%, except for the mistake part that is.

Aren't what you call inconsequential things scripture too? You say they are just 'alluded too', yet they are as clear, or more clearly, stated than the verses you use to read a six day creation. You have no inclination to look at passages that show how your hermeneutics don't work in areas where you know and cannot deny the science.

Name one area where I know but deny the science.

The inconsequential things alluded to and not an important element of the text. One example is how the sun rises and sets throughout Scripture and even today we use the same terminology yet the science of it bears out that doing no such thing is inconsequential.

 

[Mallon]

Again, this isn’t a problem for me. It is a figurative description. What is it for you?

It amazes me that you have no problem blowing off something like flat-earth geocentrism, which had been established for thousands of years based on the Scriptures, and yet get up-in-arms when a TE takes the opening chapters of Genesis figuratively (for the very same reason you take biblical geocentrism figuratively, I might add).