Handing the enemy a weapon

[Assyrian]

So in your opinion Scripture isn’t meant to be read plainly?

You mean literally?

Your question reminds me of the disciples after three long confusing years following their Lord around Judea and Galilee exclaiming the night before he died, John 16:29 Ah, now you are speaking plainly!

Most of the time he wasn't and it was literalists like Nicodemus, who had the hardest time.

So it’s rules you don’t like? Hmm…that makes sense.

Well I try to follow the example our Lord gave us, Matt 15:9And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.

If something is breathed out by God and considered profitable shouldn’t it be protected from misinterpretation and heresy?

If it is profitable it should protect us from misinterpretation and heresy. The problem come when the rules made by men tell us how to interpret scripture and scripture is not allowed contradict the human rules. It makes the rules correction proof.

Please just answer this then, when Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed was He:

• Ignorant of the poppy

• Lying

• Talking to a people that knew the mustard seed as the smallest seed.

There are no other options. Which is it?

Not speaking literally.

But Cooper's rule does not allow you to say that because the plain sense does make sense and nothing in the context indicates another interpretation, only our knowledge of science.

No this wasn’t a rant, it was the logical conclusion of a modern means of interpreting the motivations of an ancient people and their writings.

It wasn't the logical conclusion when science told the church their interpretation of the geocentric passages was wrong. Why should it be the logical conclusion now?

So because it is a parable those references to third, sixth, ninth, eleventh, one, day etc. in Matt 20 are all figurative/allegorical and really mean something entirely different? Please do share what it is they do mean, I’m really interested to hear this.

No they do mean 9am 11am, a day. But it is not a literal day because the story is not literal. They are as real as the pigs in the Prodigal Son.

So you’re saying that Hebrew scholars and Rabbi’s have no issues with this?

Maybe. They are great at coming up with lots of interpretations. But there wouldn't be an issue if they knew there was a Hebrew language rule about it.

When I refer to extra-biblical information in order to understand Scripture, I’m not talking about anything that changes the plain and simple meaning of what is being said. Whether or not the earth is flat or round, revolves around the sun or not plays no meaningful role in how any of those Scriptures you just love to cite are interpreted. The basic meaning and message of the verses in question never changes. For example; 1 Samuel 2:8:

He raises up the poor from the dust;
he lifts the needy from the ash heap
to make them sit with princes
and inherit a seat of honor.
For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's,
and on them he has set the world.


The meaning of pillars here may be ambiguous to you without science to tell you what they mean, it isn’t for me. Anyone with a basic teaching of literature can distinguish it’s meaning without the use of science. Now even if one were to use science to assist in our interpretation, it really doesn’t matter, because the meaning doesn’t change. God’s all encompassing power and control is the point here, not the pillars.

Exactly. Just like the science some people read in Genesis is not the actual message either. You are beginning to understand how we approach scripture.

Though you won't get that from Cooper. The plain meaning of 1 Sam 2:8 says there are pillars.

That can’t be said for how the evolutionist completely changes the plain meaning of Genesis.

What that God is the all powerful creator who made everything in heaven and one earth, and made mankind in his image?

How come: earth fixed is not plain meaning.
Sun moving, is not plain meaning.
Earth set on pillars, is not plain meaning.
Earth has corners, is not plain meaning
Earth made in six days really is plain meaning.

If a six day creation was the message Genesis is preaching, why is is never repeated anywhere else in the bible? It only comes up in Exodus, but not as the message being taught, but as an illustration of Sabbath and that was in the middle of a metaphor?

Everything else I mentioned, God as creator, maker of all, who made man in his image. These are taught again and again throughout the bible. Not the six days.

Remember, for the YEC extra-biblical information is only a tool to assist and enlighten understanding, not a hatchet that chops Scriptures plain meaning into an indiscernible new contrary meaning. Biblical tools are wonderful but I don’t think most scholars would think it prudent to use them in this manner.

Cooper's tool are terrible they mess up any understanding of scripture except when you have the sense to ignore them, which you do when you know the science and accept it.

Coopers rule claims to be able to tell you when to interpret scripture according to the plain meaning of the words. If it cannot do that it is useless. Perhaps you need a rule to tell you when to use Coopers rule?

The extra-biblical information that told the church He wasn’t coming soon was what, the fact He wasn’t here yet? Is that you extra-biblical information or is there something else I’m missing?

No that was the extra biblical information. But it is as much extrabiblical information as the movement of the earth and the age of rocks. All of them tell us when our old interpretations are wrong.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m under the impression that you don’t believe in an actual Adam, first man God created by divine fiat, right? If so, this is interpretation is quite interesting. How did you come about that interpretation? Does this come from some sort of TE commentary or something similar?

Umm no. I read the bible.

I saw that Gen 2&3 was allegorical (see Rev 12 etc) and the NT is full of passages where Adam is treated allegorically. Obviously there was the bit about his name meaning 'man' and Gen 5:2 where we are told Adam was God's name for mankind. I am open to the idea there was a literal Adam, but no one has come up with a really convincing case yet.

Given that you believe none of what you just stated actually happened, the meaning of this story is exactly what? Tell me how we are to apply this story to our lives. Why wouldn’t God tell us the real story and instead give us an allegory that looks and smells historical? What purpose does that serve?

Looks and smell historical? With a talking snake we only find out later in the bible was really Satan? It looks and smells a lot less historical than the pigs in the Prodigal Son, or the barbequed calf.

Also, how do you support that this isn’t historical given that Adam is referred to many times as a historical figure?

Usually at this stage people quote a list of passages referring to Adam, most of which, when we look are actually interpreting him allegorically. May be there are a few that still seem historical but with so many allegorical references, are we sure these aren't allegorical too? Allegories are harder for us to spot, it is too easy to miss out on what is being said.

 

[vossler]

You mean literally?

Usually plainly means literally, but there are times when it is not. Although from the TE worldview it would appear to be more accurate saying it is usually figurative but there are times when things are literal.

Your question reminds me of the disciples after three long confusing years following their Lord around Judea and Galilee exclaiming the night before he died, John 16:29 Ah, now you are speaking plainly!

I’ll tell you what, it sure gives one the open door to interpret it any which way one may be so inclined to do. This way you could quote me a Scripture that says X, I can tell you it says Y and we can both be happy. You should write a book supporting something like that and I’m sure it would be a best seller.

Ah yes, that sounds like an excellent reason not to read Scripture plainly.

Although there is one thing you didn’t adequately address when mentioning the passage from John 16, they were confused not because what He said made common sense, they were confused because it didn’t. Big difference! Not that this would in anyway hinder the potential of a book because most people would buy anything that allows them to make their own rules while at the same time allowing them to still feel righteous.

Well I try to follow the example our Lord gave us, Matt 15:9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.

Ahh…so to you if someone interprets Scripture as, given contextual concerns, it makes common sense, he or she is like the Pharisee who honors God with his lips but not with his heart. That's surely a different approach.

If it is profitable it should protect us from misinterpretation and heresy.

What you’re failing to see is, it’s only profitable when it is interpreted properly

Not speaking literally.

Nice evasive answer, I’m not surprised.

But Cooper's rule does not allow you to say that because the plain sense does make sense and nothing in the context indicates another interpretation, only our knowledge of science.

Context my brother, context permits the diligent studier of the Word to put it all together without butchering the plain reading.

It wasn't the logical conclusion when science told the church their interpretation of the geocentric passages was wrong. Why should it be the logical conclusion now?

I can’t speak for the church hierarchy’s motivation in those days, I can only comment on the motivations of today. Today we like to portray people of the past as ignorant, uneducated and certainly not as evolved as modern man is in order to dismiss some of their writings as foolishness.

No they do mean 9am 11am, a day. But it is not a literal day because the story is not literal. They are as real as the pigs in the Prodigal Son.

Oh so they are literal times in a day that isn’t literal. Gotcha!

Exactly. Just like the science some people read in Genesis is not the actual message either. You are beginning to understand how we approach scripture.
Though you won't get that from Cooper. The plain meaning of 1 Sam 2:8 says there are pillars.

If one has their heart set against God and the knowledge of Him then yes the plain meaning is always something that makes Him look foolish. To a genuine seeker or Christian this should look pretty plain to them.

What that God is the all powerful creator who made everything in heaven and one earth, and made mankind in his image?

Exactly! Evolutionists would have God evolve man into His image.

How come: earth fixed is not plain meaning.

It is! It appears fixed to me, do you feel otherwise?

Sun moving, is not plain meaning.

Sure it is! Doesn’t the sun move across the sky?

Earth set on pillars, is not plain meaning.

I have no problem understanding this plain meaning. It is on those who wish to read into it who discover or see something else.

Earth has corners, is not plain meaning

So when someone says the four corners of the earth you don’t understand the plain meaning?

Earth made in six days really is plain meaning.

Eventually you got it! Well done!

If a six day creation was the message Genesis is preaching, why is is never repeated anywhere else in the bible? It only comes up in Exodus, but not as the message being taught, but as an illustration of Sabbath and that was in the middle of a metaphor?

I like how you do that, say something is never repeated and then immediately correct yourself. Quite clever!

Oh it most definitely does come up in Exodus as a message being taught, it's called the doctrine of work.

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.
​

Cooper's tool are terrible they mess up any understanding of scripture except when you have the sense to ignore them, which you do when you know the science and accept it.

Given that I believe the rule works without having to ignore it and without having to chop, dice and reinterpret Scripture to something indiscernible from the plain meaning, I’d say it works pretty good.

Coopers rule claims to be able to tell you when to interpret scripture according to the plain meaning of the words. If it cannot do that it is useless. Perhaps you need a rule to tell you when to use Coopers rule?

It’s that not so little thing considered the three main rules of biblical interpretation, context, context and context.

Umm no. I read the bible.

Oh so this is your own interpretation, not a plain reading.

I am open to the idea there was a literal Adam, but no one has come up with a really convincing case yet.

Given your presuppositions I don’t think someone ever will.

Looks and smell historical? With a talking snake we only find out later in the bible was really Satan? It looks and smells a lot less historical than the pigs in the Prodigal Son, or the barbequed calf.

You still haven’t given us a reason why God wouldn’t tell us the real story, what purpose does it serve Him to deceive us?

Usually at this stage people quote a list of passages referring to Adam, most of which, when we look are actually interpreting him allegorically. May be there are a few that still seem historical but with so many allegorical references, are we sure these aren't allegorical too? Allegories are harder for us to spot, it is too easy to miss out on what is being said.

Allegories sure aren’t hard for the TE to spot. Allegorical readings of historical accounts are the TE speciality.

 

[Assyrian]

Usually plainly means literally, but there are times when it is not. Although from the TE worldview it would appear to be more accurate saying it is usually figurative but there are times when things are literal.

Oh there is an awful lot in scripture that is plain, but isn't literal. The meaning of the Good Shepherd is fairly plain. So is the meaning of the Good Samaritan. They are not mean literally though. The meaning of Ezekiel 16 is very plain, graphically plain, but not literal.

I think TEs keep an open mind about what is literal and what is figurative. So do you, judging by the way you interpret pillars of the earth and the geocentric passages.

I’ll tell you what, it sure gives one the open door to interpret it any which way one may be so inclined to do. This way you could quote me a Scripture that says X, I can tell you it says Y and we can both be happy. You should write a book supporting something like that and I’m sure it would be a best seller.

Does the meaning of the Good Samaritan change if you don't believe it actually happened? Is Psalm 93 that different for heliocentrists?

Yet for someone who believes the timetable of the creation is the really important message in the text, your 'literal interpretation' can completely rearrange the timetable in chapter 2 to make it fit.
a) Ironically even interpretations which claim to be literal have 'the open door to interpret it any which way one may be so inclined to do'.
b) If the literal is the whole point in these passages and you can make it mean anything, then it is meaningless.

Ah yes, that sounds like an excellent reason not to read Scripture plainly.

That's for sure.

Although there is one thing you didn’t adequately address when mentioning the passage from John 16, they were confused not because what He said made common sense, they were confused because it didn’t. Big difference!

They had spent the previous three years being confused by what Jesus said. A lot of it made common sense, but they knew, it wasn't literal. You must be born again... Eat my flesh and drink my blood... Beware the yeast of the pharisees... (Yes, and killer tomatoes).

Not that this would in anyway hinder the potential of a book because most people would buy anything that allows them to make their own rules while at the same time allowing them to still feel righteous.

Ah, like your flexible literal interpretation you mean?

Ahh…so to you if someone interprets Scripture as, given contextual concerns, it makes common sense, he or she is like the Pharisee who honors God with his lips but not with his heart. That's surely a different approach.

Certainly YECs seem to paying lipservice when the preach how wrong it is to to reinterpret Genesis and the need to trust in God's word over the ideas of men, but they blissfully reinterpret flat earth and geocentric passages because they trust science over plain meaning.

But no, I am simply talking about man made rules trumping scripture, stuffing scripture into an easily comprehensible box that can be controlled by men.

What you’re failing to see is, it’s only profitable when it is interpreted properly

Which your man made rule does not allow you to do. It tells you what is a proper interpretation, but who checks the man made rule to see if it is right?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Nice evasive answer, I’m not surprised.

You think a TE suggesting something was not meant literally is being evasive?

Context my brother, context permits the diligent studier of the Word to put it all together without butchering the plain reading.

What is there in the context that tells you the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds on earth?

I can’t speak for the church hierarchy’s motivation in those days, I can only comment on the motivations of today. Today we like to portray people of the past as ignorant, uneducated and certainly not as evolved as modern man is in order to dismiss some of their writings as foolishness.

You are the one who keeps doing that. I did not call any of them ignorant or foolish. You say it is the logical conclusion, yet you also claim you cannot comment on their motivations. That doesn't not make sense.

I did not say hierarchy either. Bible scholars and theologians from every denomination had to deal with the problem of the geocentric passages once the science contradicted the literal interpretation.

Oh so they are literal times in a day that isn’t literal. Gotcha!

Assuming your exclamation of comprehension is not genuine, would you answer this question,
Were the pigs in the Prodigal Son literal?

If one has their heart set against God and the knowledge of Him then yes the plain meaning is always something that makes Him look foolish. To a genuine seeker or Christian this should look pretty plain to them.

So you shouldn't care if the plain meaning of scripture tells you the sun moves around a flat earth set on pillars. What does it matter if that looks foolish to those who hate God? You trust in God who knows the truth and he has told us about it. At least that is your approach with six day creationism. I really don't see how, or why, you reverse the approach with flat earth and geocentrism.

Exactly! Evolutionists would have God evolve man into His image.

Does it matter how God created us in his image? Does it matter that God used genetics to make us instead of actually knitting us together in our mother's womb?

It is! It appears fixed to me, do you feel otherwise?

So the bible saying the earth is fixed is simply reporting a common illusion as fact? And you inerrantist?

Sure it is! Doesn’t the sun move across the sky?

No.

I have no problem understanding this plain meaning. It is on those who wish to read into it who discover or see something else.

You are not actually saying what your plain meaning is and whether it involves actual pillars.

So when someone says the four corners of the earth you don’t understand the plain meaning?

It understand the meaning, but it isn't literal.

Eventually you got it! Well done!

No sorry, It doesn't work. The neurons just snap back into place.

Explain to me again how you can be a heliocentrist who believes the earth is fixed in place, with the sun moving around it, who believes corners and pillars are 'plain meaning'? Because you seem to really believe in a spinning, sun orbiting, spherical earth with standard geological structure, who happily reconciles all this with the 'plain meaning' of scripture, but who insist the six days have to be somehow more literal and plain meaning than pillars and fixed earth etc. The six days have to contradict science but the pillars etc don't.

I like how you do that, say something is never repeated and then immediately correct yourself. Quite clever!

Oh it most definitely does come up in Exodus as a message being taught, it's called the doctrine of work.

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.​

This is the ten commandments here. The message is to observe the Sabbath, the six day creation is simply the illustration, replaced in Deuteronomy by an illustration from the Exodus from Egypt. Both describe their illustration metaphorically God as a weary labourer refreshed after having a rest, God freeing the Israelites with his arm and hand. The message in Ex 20:8-11 and Deut 5:12-15 is that the Israelite were to keep the Sabbath, That is what the passage is teaching, not that God had literal and and arms or made the world in six literal days and had a rest to get his breath back. That is why I said you don't find the message of a six day creation anywhere else in the bible. No one teaches six day creationism anywhere in the bible. They do teach all the important point from the Genesis creation account.

Given that I believe the rule works without having to ignore it and without having to chop, dice and reinterpret Scripture to something indiscernible from the plain meaning, I’d say it works pretty good.

You mean apart from the times you do ignore it and chop and dice scripture to make it fit? How can you trust it with Genesis when it fails everywhere else we looked? A rule that tells you when to take scripture literally that you have to ignore when when science contradicts the plain meaning, is not really much use with Genesis.

Coopers rule claims to be able to tell you when to interpret scripture according to the plain meaning of the words. If it cannot do that it is useless. Perhaps you need a rule to tell you when to use Coopers rule?

It’s that not so little thing considered the three main rules of biblical interpretation, context, context and context.

That does not address the failure of Coopers rule.

I agree context is important and I gave you 25 reasons from context and from other passages that address the subject that tell us Genesis may not be teaching a literal six day creation. You have not provided one thing from context to address Coopers failure with mustard seeds, flat earth or geocentic passages.

Oh so this is your own interpretation, not a plain reading.

Adam being God's name for the people he created, from the time he created them is pretty plain. Can you think of another meaning?

Given your presuppositions I don’t think someone ever will.

I just want to learn what the bible teaches and the ways it speaks to us. I don't know of any presuppositions that would stop me being convinced Adam was literal.

You still haven’t given us a reason why God wouldn’t tell us the real story, what purpose does it serve Him to deceive us?

I think you know enough about the way God speaks to know he is not always literal and loves to teach us the real story through parable and figures of speech. If you ignore that, aren't you deceiving yourself? Or being deceived by people who claim parable is literal history.

Allegories sure aren’t hard for the TE to spot.

Not when the bible is full of allegory, parable and metaphor.

Allegorical readings of historical accounts are the TE speciality.

Here you are assuming it is a historical account. That is begging the question.

Tell me, how many historical accounts are there with no human witness like Genesis 1? How many historical accounts feature a talking animal that we learn later was an allegorical animal, and really Satan not an actual snake. Accounts that feature people talking to allegories are usually allegorical not historical.

 

[vossler]

I think TEs keep an open mind about what is literal and what is figurative. So do you, judging by the way you interpret pillars of the earth and the geocentric passages.

An open mind is an avenue for God to use a man, while a closed mind will make a man useless to Him. Like everything though, too much of an open mind can allow one to be of no use falling prey to every new doctrine under the sun. Like everything else in life it’s a balanced and grounded approach on the truth which is critical to success.

Does the meaning of the Good Samaritan change if you don't believe it actually happened?

This is quite different than what we’re discussing because no one is trying to change the meaning of the Good Samaritan whereas evolution changes the meaning of Genesis.

Yet for someone who believes the timetable of the creation is the really important message in the text, your 'literal interpretation' can completely rearrange the timetable in chapter 2 to make it fit.

a) Ironically even interpretations which claim to be literal have 'the open door to interpret it any which way one may be so inclined to do'.
b) If the literal is the whole point in these passages and you can make it mean anything, then it is meaningless.

The thing is chapter 2 doesn’t have a timetable nor is a complete creation account and isn’t intended to give that type of information. Chapter 2 spells out some of the specifics concerning man and his creation. There really isn’t anything that allows one to interpret this in any manner one would like. Again, most folks don’t have any difficulty gathering the meaning of this chapter, it’s only when we try to make it difficult that it becomes so.

Certainly YECs seem to paying lipservice when the preach how wrong it is to reinterpret Genesis and the need to trust in God's word over the ideas of men, but they blissfully reinterpret flat earth and geocentric passages because they trust science over plain meaning.

Maybe it’s because we’re quite blissful people.

Which your man made rule does not allow you to do. It tells you what is a proper interpretation, but who checks the man made rule to see if it is right?

Why Scripture itself does.

You think a TE suggesting something was not meant literally is being evasive?

Yes.

What is there in the context that tells you the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds on earth?

The context of history and culture.

You are the one who keeps doing that. I did not call any of them ignorant or foolish. You say it is the logical conclusion, yet you also claim you cannot comment on their motivations. That doesn't not make sense.

Isn’t it the TE that keeps saying that ANE people thought the earth was flat, stood on pillars and had four corners? I’m not aware of any YECs making those claims. I personally don’t know enough about the church leaders to comment on what their motivations were, I’ve read things that make sense of it but I’m not comfortable enough to make any claims.

I did not say hierarchy either. Bible scholars and theologians from every denomination had to deal with the problem of the geocentric passages once the science contradicted the literal interpretation.

No you didn’t say hierarchy but let’s face it the average Joe on the street didn’t really care about this subject, which is not all that different from today. Isn’t it amazing how the layman doesn’t have issues just the theologian.

Were the pigs in the Prodigal Son literal?

Well they most certainly weren’t people or some other sort of allegorical representation, so yes they were literally pigs.

So you shouldn't care if the plain meaning of scripture tells you the sun moves around a flat earth set on pillars. What does it matter if that looks foolish to those who hate God? You trust in God who knows the truth and he has told us about it. At least that is your approach with six day creationism. I really don't see how, or why, you reverse the approach with flat earth and geocentrism.

You’re finally understanding how I see this. That’s right you shouldn’t care when reading your Bible if you happen to believe the sun moves around a flat earth set on pillars because none of those things are pertinent to the message being conveyed. When interpreting Scripture my concern should never be towards those who hate God, why should you think otherwise? If others wish to think of you as foolish for believing the message why should that affect or bother you?

Does it matter how God created us in his image? Does it matter that God used genetics to make us instead of actually knitting us together in our mother's womb?

It doesn’t matter to me, but it sure does to Him. He didn’t tell us how He evolved us, He told us how He made us, so I think it matters to Him.

So the bible saying the earth is fixed is simply reporting a common illusion as fact? And you inerrantist?

I don’t know about you but the earth is fixed to me. It is a solid and immovable mass, that pretty much defines fixed to me.

No.

It does so everyday for me.

You are not actually saying what your plain meaning is and whether it involves actual pillars.

When the weatherman tells me that the sunrise tomorrow will be at 6:59 am I still understand the plain meaning without him telling me that the sun doesn't actually move.

I understand the meaning, but it isn't literal.

I happy to know you understand the plain meaning too.

No sorry, It doesn't work. The neurons just snap back into place.

Just when I thought we made a connection. Darn it!

Explain to me again how you can be a heliocentrist who believes the earth is fixed in place, with the sun moving around it, who believes corners and pillars are 'plain meaning'? Because you seem to really believe in a spinning, sun orbiting, spherical earth with standard geological structure, who happily reconciles all this with the 'plain meaning' of scripture, but who insist the six days have to be somehow more literal and plain meaning than pillars and fixed earth etc. The six days have to contradict science but the pillars etc don't.

To be perfectly honest I truly don’t know whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice-versa and it really doesn’t matter to me either. I trust the scientists and other knowledgeable people who have studied this in-depth and they have determined that we live in a heliocentric solar system. That’s all fine and dandy but that fact plays no real role in how I live my life nor how I interpret Scripture. If that is important information for you to assist in your interpretation of Scripture, well, then more power to you. Now the six days are important to how I interpret Scripture because much of the rest of the book relies on Genesis being an historical rather than allegorical account.

This is the ten commandments here. The message is to observe the Sabbath, the six day creation is simply the illustration, replaced in Deuteronomy by an illustration from the Exodus from Egypt.

This and many other points of contention will probably not be resolved until you and I are in heaven and sitting at the pub drinking a round of ale discussing how one of us (I won’t mention who ) will repeatedly keep stating “I don’t know how I could have been so wrong.” Until then it would appear neither of us is in any position to cede a point.

How can you trust it with Genesis when it fails everywhere else we looked? A rule that tells you when to take scripture literally that you have to ignore when science contradicts the plain meaning, is not really much use with Genesis.

It’s not as difficult as you make it seem. I’ve yet to come across an instance where the rule hasn’t worked and worked quite well your objections not withstanding. Nor has there been a single scientific finding that has caused me any concern with Genesis either.

Adam being God's name for the people he created, from the time he created them is pretty plain. Can you think of another meaning?

That’s why most translations state man and not Adam.

I think you know enough about the way God speaks to know he is not always literal and loves to teach us the real story through parable and figures of speech. If you ignore that, aren't you deceiving yourself? Or being deceived by people who claim parable is literal history.

That still doesn’t answer the question though. Regardless of what you may think, the vast majority of people would say that Genesis is written as history. So why would God deceive His people by presenting creation one way when in fact He did something entirely different?

Tell me, how many historical accounts are there with no human witness like Genesis 1? How many historical accounts feature a talking animal that we learn later was an allegorical animal, and really Satan not an actual snake. Accounts that feature people talking to allegories are usually allegorical not historical.

So if I’m the only witness to a crime is my testimony no longer of value? This could then naturally lead to the question; how many historical accounts include a resurrection, does this mean that it too was allegorical?

 

[Assyrian]

An open mind is an avenue for God to use a man, while a closed mind will make a man useless to Him. Like everything though, too much of an open mind can allow one to be of no use falling prey to every new doctrine under the sun. Like everything else in life it’s a balanced and grounded approach on the truth which is critical to success.

I agree you have a good balance of science and an open minded approach to scripture interpretation with the geocentric passages. Of course your mind clangs shut when it comes to interpreting Genesis. It is not so long ago that non geocentric interpretation of scripture, justification by faith, symbolic eucharist, and adult believer baptism were new doctrines, so we do need a balance of openness and caution. Like I said you show this balance for the geocentric passages but are closed shut with Genesis.

This is quite different than what we’re discussing because no one is trying to change the meaning of the Good Samaritan whereas evolution changes the meaning of Genesis.

No it doesn't. God still created man in his own image and likeness. We just have a better appreciation of the wonderfully complex process involved, just as reproductive biology gives us a better appreciation of what it means for God to knit us together in our mother's womb.

The thing is chapter 2 doesn’t have a timetable nor is a complete creation account and isn’t intended to give that type of information. Chapter 2 spells out some of the specifics concerning man and his creation. There really isn’t anything that allows one to interpret this in any manner one would like. Again, most folks don’t have any difficulty gathering the meaning of this chapter, it’s only when we try to make it difficult that it becomes so.

Of course chapter 2 has a timetable. It is a story, it has a storyline. It tells you what happened and then what happened next. It seem strange that YECs talk about the Genesis creation account as historical narrative and base their literal interpretation on it being a historical narrative, but they don't see the history it tells if it is literal. Again we get that creationist selectivity. Pieces of the story are the important meaning, but not the story itself.

Maybe it’s because we’re quite blissful people.

There's a saying about that.

Why Scripture itself does.

How can it if Cooper's rule tells you what scripture means? Beside you ignore scriptures that show Cooper's rule is wrong, even when you yourself ignore Cooper's rule for them.

Yes.

Why?

The context of history and culture.

Ah, so context is not just what the immediate passage says. I thought you were just concerned with the scriptural context.

However if you see history as part of the context then you should have no problem with evolution and the 5 billion year history of the planet as part of the context of Genesis.

Isn’t it the TE that keeps saying that ANE people thought the earth was flat, stood on pillars and had four corners? I’m not aware of any YECs making those claims. I personally don’t know enough about the church leaders to comment on what their motivations were, I’ve read things that make sense of it but I’m not comfortable enough to make any claims.

I would never accuse people of ignorance and foolishness because they did not know about science discovered millennia later. You talk of the context of history but brush under the carpet the historical context that heliocentrism was first discovered in the 3rd century BC by Aristarchos of Samos and only accepted after Copernicus. Yet you see no problem in reconciling the geocentric statements in the bible by reinterpreting the plain meaning of the text. Such a reinterpretation in your eyes does not seem to warrant a 'silly old ancients' rant. But suggesting that the six day creation might not be literal, and you claim TEs are calling everyone in the bible unevolved and stupid. In fact the only person to mention six day creation was a man who thought God's days were not literal. Clever old ancient.

No you didn’t say hierarchy but let’s face it the average Joe on the street didn’t really care about this subject, which is not all that different from today. Isn’t it amazing how the layman doesn’t have issues just the theologian.

It is strange that you dismiss as 'theologians', making it sound like a bad word, man like Luther and Calvin whose theology led the church into the Reformation. And of course you don't know enough about Luther and Calvin to comment but you know what the layman in the street were concerned about.

Well they most certainly weren’t people or some other sort of allegorical representation, so yes they were literally pigs.

Oh I agree they weren't allegorical representations of anything, but they weren't literal pigs either. They were made up, pretend pigs, bit players in an allegorical parable.

You’re finally understanding how I see this. That’s right you shouldn’t care when reading your Bible if you happen to believe the sun moves around a flat earth set on pillars because none of those things are pertinent to the message being conveyed. When interpreting Scripture my concern should never be towards those who hate God, why should you think otherwise? If others wish to think of you as foolish for believing the message why should that affect or bother you?

I would have thought they were important to an inerrant scripture. If the plain meaning say something that is wrong, then the scripture is wrong or Cooper's rules for finding the plain meaning is wrong. Sounds like Coopers rule is useless because it doesn't matter what the plain sense of scripture is, or whether it is right or wrong. It is only the message that is important and the message can be completely different from the plain sense.

Cooper says when the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. But you do. You seek another meaning in the text, the message, and if this is different from the plain sense, the plain sense can be discarded or reinterpreted regardless of what Cooper says. What is the point in Coopers rule if you ignore what it says, if it tells you nothing about the true message of the text, and the plain sense that Cooper tries so hard to nail down can still be reinterpreted?

And how do you decide on a message that is not the plain meaning of the text? How do you decide a six day creation is the message of Genesis but geocentrism is not the message of the geocentrist passages? How can you tell them apart? I could understand taking the plain sense as what the bible is saying for all of the bible, or letting our scientific understanding tell us when a literal interpretation is mistaken with both, but I do not understand an arbitrary decision to accept some science as telling us the plain sense should be reinterpreted, but rejecting other sciences.

You interpret it literally, not based on Coopers rule, but on the message you get out of it, and whether the message depends on it being literal or not. Of course Catholics get their message of sacramental theology from a literal body and blood. Geocentrists read the message of man being a special creation from the earth being the centre of the universe, the pinnacle of creation. They also get the message of God revealing the way the universe he created works. Just because you think you see a message that depends on a literal interpretation does not mean the literal interpretation or the message is right.

Cooper's rule say 'seek no other sense'. But you go on to look for a message that is different from the plain sense, and discard Cooper's plain sense if it contradicts science. Cooper's rule tells you nothing about a passage being literal or not. What is the point of a rule like that?

It doesn’t matter to me, but it sure does to Him. He didn’t tell us how He evolved us, He told us how He made us, so I think it matters to Him.

I don’t know about you but the earth is fixed to me. It is a solid and immovable mass, that pretty much defines fixed to me.

It does so everyday for me.

Welcome to geocentrism. I had hoped to push you the other way, but at least you are being consistent.

When the weatherman tells me that the sunrise tomorrow will be at 6:59 am I still understand the plain meaning without him telling me that the sun doesn't actually move.

I have heard meteorologists talking about the earth rotating too. I don't see that in the bible. Have any of weathermen told you the earth is fixed and does not move? Has any of them talked about the sun rushing around to the other side to get to the place it rises again?

I happy to know you understand the plain meaning too.

Not according to Cooper.

To be perfectly honest I truly don’t know whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice-versa and it really doesn’t matter to me either. I trust the scientists and other knowledgeable people who have studied this in-depth and they have determined that we live in a heliocentric solar system. That’s all fine and dandy but that fact plays no real role in how I live my life nor how I interpret Scripture. If that is important information for you to assist in your interpretation of Scripture, well, then more power to you.

Wow I really am pushing you to geocentrism

Now the six days are important to how I interpret Scripture because much of the rest of the book relies on Genesis being an historical rather than allegorical account.

No it does not. The only reference to six days come up in Exodus and their being literal makes no difference to the meaning of the Sabbath command. Add to that we have the writer himself, Moses, not taking God's day literally in his psalm on the creation. Perhaps a literal historical Adam makes a difference in the way some people read other parts of the bible. But a historical Adam does not require all the details of Gen 2&3 being literal, and clearly some details like the talking snake were not. What difference does it make if God used mud or evolution?

This and many other points of contention will probably not be resolved until you and I are in heaven and sitting at the pub drinking a round of ale discussing how one of us (I won’t mention who ) will repeatedly keep stating “I don’t know how I could have been so wrong.” Until then it would appear neither of us is in any position to cede a point.

You don't think the message of Exodus 20:9-11 is that the Israelites were to observe the Sabbath.

Anyway, you are buying.

It’s not as difficult as you make it seem. I’ve yet to come across an instance where the rule hasn’t worked and worked quite well your objections not withstanding.

The plain sense of the geocentrist and flat earth passages is geocentrism and flat earth The plain sense of mustard seed is that it is the smallest seed. The plain sensed of 'this is my body' is what the Catholics say. The bible is full of metaphor and parable that are not called metaphor and parable. Cooper tells us to take them all literally. He never got past being a Nicodemus struggling with the meaning of 'born again'. You expect him to tell you how to understand the bible.

But you ignore Cooper all the time because it does not work. But keep him as your sig because you think it tells you how to interpret Genesis.

Nor has there been a single scientific finding that has caused me any concern with Genesis either.

They don't cause you concern with the geocentrist passages either, but for the completely opposite reason. With the geocentrist passages you accept the science and reinterpret Coopers plain sense, or you did before you turned geocentrist anyway. With Genesis you ignore the science and insist the plain sense has to be the only meaning.

That’s why most translations state man and not Adam.

But God named them adam.

That still doesn’t answer the question though. Regardless of what you may think, the vast majority of people would say that Genesis is written as history. So why would God deceive His people by presenting creation one way when in fact He did something entirely different?

Since when is scripture interpretation decided by vote? In 1500 the vast majority thought bread and wine became flesh and blood and that the bible really said the sun went round the earth. Does that mean God deceived them? So what if most people did not stop to think there wasn't a real prodigal son? We need to learn how God speaks to us and he loves to do it through parables and metaphors. Clearly he was more concerned that people learn the message of the parable rather than worried about people mistaking parable for literal fact.

So if I’m the only witness to a crime is my testimony no longer of value? This could then naturally lead to the question; how many historical accounts include a resurrection, does this mean that it too was allegorical?

One human witness is still a witness and there were 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ. It is not a question of how unusual the event they witnesses, but the fact that there were witnesses. You assume Genesis 1 is a historical narrative, but that is a literary form in the bible that is written from human testimony. Gen 1 has no human witness so it is not a historical narrative it is a prophetic revelation. These revelations are full of figurative language, metaphor, parable and allegory. It is the way God likes to talk to us. Just look at his son.